I was waiting to respond until I saw this reported from a source like Reuters.
This is very scary. I’m an American community college instructor in Silicon Valley who does research with domestic and international colleagues; in fact, I will be in Japan this summer as a visiting researcher. If people could be denied entry to the United States over harmless political opinions shared electronically, then this hurts our ability to collaborate in-person with foreign researchers in the United States, and this also hurts our ability to hold academic conferences here.
It’s one thing if the scientist made threats or advocated overthrow; that is not protected free speech. But if it’s just an opinion or even name-calling, then this denial of entry is flatly wrong and flatly un-American.
Perhaps it’s time for prominent US academic conferences with international attendees to move to Canada, France, Japan, or some other place where scientists and science in general are not under attack by their government.
I'm curious what the line is. If someone says "Trump is violating the constitution and should be impeached", is that advocating overthrow? Or just suggesting a way to work within the system?
If someone says "presidential democracies are historically unstable, the US would do better under a parliamentary system" is that advocating overthrow?
When Trump said "Proud Boys stand back and stand by" was he advocating overthrow?
I would say Trump should be removed from office before he does too much damage to US democracy, peacefully if possible. I'm not advocating anything other than protecting the Constitution, and there are two other branches of government that can act to protect it.
It was Biden that damaged the democracy by allowing unchecked, unlimited immigration into the country, even going as far as to subsidize and pay for accommodations in luxury hotels in NYC. No country can stand on that kind of policy for long. No country in history ever has.
Immigrants are a boogeyman. The US is a massive country with a huge economy. Most of them are seeking better opportunities by doing jobs Americans don't want to do. There have always been waves of immigrants since the US was founded. And it's not true that Biden allowed unlimited immigration.
At any rate, this is just a distraction from how the Trump administration has been seeking to consolidate executive power unconstitutionally since taking office a 2nd time.
> Most of them are seeking better opportunities by doing jobs Americans don't want to do
No, there are no jobs Americans don't want to do. As you say, its a massive country with 300 million people, there's a diverse set of skills and labor pool here. They just want market-level wages to do them.
There's been migration, it's been largely controlled migration for the past 120 years, with no expectation that migrants would be subsidized and provided with shelter, cell phones, etc. or that we'd allow gangs from Venezuela to establish footholds and allow human and drug trafficking to pass through completely unchecked.
There is nothing Trump has done that any previous president hasn't already done. Presidents have a lot of power under the Constitution and even more that Congress has delegated to them over the years.
Didn't the democrat legislators write a border security bill, but republican legislators shut it down because they wanted to campaign on lack of border security, which they couldn't do if they actually did their job and passed a bill to fix it?
> There is nothing Trump has done that any previous president hasn't already done.
How many presidents managed to crash a booming economy in just a few months?
Biden, of course, didn't allow "unchecked, unlimited immigration into the country" and the accommodations used were not "luxury hotels". These anti-immigration talking points have been repeatedly shown to simply be lies.
Unsustainable and terrible waste of money. There are millions of people that would pay money out of their own pockets to come to the U.S., educated people who are self-sufficient and we wasted money on making a bad problem worse.
Didn't the democrat legislators write a border security bill, but republican legislators shut it down because they wanted to campaign on lack of border security, which they couldn't do if they actually did their job and passed a bill to fix it?
Yes, the Roosevelt Hotel was used for housing for asylum seekers. US immigration law allows for asylum seekers. Those asylum seekers must be housed somewhere. Certain states (e.g., Texas) transferred asylum seekers to New York City for a (arguably justified) political stunt. New York City used the Roosevelt Hotel.
> Unsustainable and terrible waste of money. There are millions of people that would pay money out of their own pockets to come to the U.S., educated people who are self-sufficient and we wasted money on making a bad problem worse.
That isn't how US immigration law works. Everyone agrees US Immigration law is a disaster. As I mentioned, there was a bipartisan agreement to help fix it. Trump derailed that effort.
I have not seen what he actually said. However, the agency is quoted in the article saying it wasn't "political". I also saw in another article that it involved "terrorism". Since Trump has had two assassination attempts, they have heightened scrutiny. As long as you don't advocate for violence, I'm sure you're fine.
Has anyone checked the scientist's social media? Border agencies are known to monitor social media. If he did something like, say, express sympathy for Luigi Mangione or Tesla vandals, this would definitely dovetail with a "terrorism" rejection.
I don't understand how Tesla vandalism rises to the level of terrorism. It's protest in the form of vandalism. But this administration wants to misclassify any resistance.
Protest in the form of vandalism is terrorism. You have a First Amendment right to speech, but not to violence and destruction.
The FBI defines terrorism as: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."
Clearly, criminal trespass on someone's Tesla to discourage Elon Musk from taking actions against your ideological goals falls within that category.
“Free speech” has always been about protecting people against exactly this, but since they have spent almost a decade destroying the meaning of the phrase, they can now get rid of the freedom it entails.
While I think this case is silly (bad), First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens and to a lesser extent to permanent residents (we've seen that permanent residents can have their permanent residency canceled). EDIT: To be clear foreigners can't be imprisoned in the U.S. for their speech any more than a citizen, but unlike a citizen they can be removed from the U.S. because of their speech.
Also, this is an action by CBP, not by the POTUS. I seriously doubt there was any order by POTUS regarding the speech of foreigners abroad. Most likely this is just a zealous CBP agent making this decision. I've been given the third degree by immigration officers in the U.S. and Canada, and it always felt very random.
>> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens
Given Musk and Vance have lectured other countries on 'free speech' I think this argument no longer works. If they're so invested in the rules on speech in various European countries they're hypocrites when they deny it to foreign nationals.
Demanding that Europe have free speech for their citizens is not the same thing as demanding that Europe have free speech for non-citizens. Sophistry doesn't help in controversial times, IMO.
> Of course, there's no need to "demand" something that is already given. We have free speech rights here, no matter what Vance or Musk say.
People in Europe, and especially the UK, are absolutely being imprisoned for speech that in the U.S. is protected speech. You can argue about degrees of free speech if you like, but the fact remains that we have a great deal more legal protections for political (and other) speech in the U.S. than in Europe.
Except if you badmouth Trump at an airport, obviously. Or represent his opponent in court. Or advocate for Palestine. Or refuse to say "Gulf of America". Or peacefully protest. Or generally say anything he doesn't like.
You don't actually know what the texts said. There's been a great deal of conjecture with no actual confirmation. Maybe there's something else here and the media is just running with a narrative. Maybe the CBP is being overzealous and needs to be reigned in.
Either way, applications for visas do not have to be accepted.
Americans talk crap about Trump and Biden and every other leader in this country. Here you are doing it on a US based website. Nobody cares.
> Except if you badmouth Trump at an airport, obviously.
The context is speech in the country you are a citizen of. I'm sure citizens of all countries can badmouth Trump at any European airport, but that's not a good test of whether citizens of a European country A have free speech rights within their own country especially when speaking against their own governments.
Why would you absolve POTUS when it's clear his administration's policies created the environment that enables CBP officers to take this liberty?
Additionally, the CBP spokesperson[1] defended the action, and despite reporters asking questions, the administration has done nothing to walk back the action or apologize. All signs point to the administration being very okay with stuff like this happening.
[1]: This might not be widely known, but one of the first actions that happens on inauguration day is the replacement of US government agency spokespersons with new political appointees. One of the powers of the executive branch is the bully pulpit and smart administrations seek to use it from day one.
I've been watching this sort of thing for decades. Decisions like this by a CBP agent never get overturned by their management, and it never reaches the White House. If what the French researcher wrote was harmless then I would agree with you that this would be a case of policy from the WH causing overreactions below.
> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens and to a lesser extent to permanent residents
Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents. SCOTUS has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment's protections as extending beyond just citizens and permanent residents in matters of freedom of speech and religion. While some rights, such as voting, are restricted to citizens, the First Amendment's protections apply to anyone within the U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.
The amendment is short and clear: "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Even if one argued "the people" refers only to U.S. Citizens (on what basis, who knows), that would only restrict assembly and petitions. The first part is unambiguously comprehensive and clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added by me.)
> Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents.
The Second Amendment does ("... the right of the People ..."). And the Fourteenth Amendment specifically refers to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are taken to apply to all persons in the U.S., citizens, residents, and otherwise, even though they say nothing of the sort.
If one wished to say that the 2A's mention of "the People" implies that the other amendments don't apply to foreigners, that would have perverse results such as denying all due process to foreigners. The contrary is true. Therefore the other protections do apply to foreigners except for the fact that foreigners can be expelled, and there is no protection against that (in principle not even due process protections against removal except as granted by statute).
The Constitution is not just what's written on it but what the courts have said in their interpretations. I'm quite sure that the 1A does not protect foreigners against removal for their speech is not controversial in legal circles as a statement of actual jurisprudence.
Some fair points. Courts have ruled Congress can make laws concerning foreign residents that would be unconstitutional if applied to domestic residents and citizens. They generally can't deny someone their Constitutional rights once already inside the US though. But since deportation isn't a criminal conviction (and rejection at the border especially isn't), it's conceivable that they could deny someone entry for a variety of reasons.
So perhaps not a violation of the Constitution. Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for. Is it legal? Perhaps. Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
> Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for.
That's an "if". We don't know what the CBP agent saw. But let's assume it's harmless, then I agree that it's damaging to the Administration's brand, but I also wouldn't agree (yet) that it happened because of Trump's orders.
> Is it legal? Perhaps.
Current law gives the executive branch the power to turn away foreigners for almost any reason.
> Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Almost certainly, especially if neither CBP makes a more useful statement nor the WH comes out and clears things up. It's entirely possible that the WH will not take notice and that CBP doesn't want to engage the public on this.
Some years ago the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission started going into convention venues in Texas and arresting anyone they could argue was publicly intoxicated. That led to a spate of conventions boycotting the state until the TABC backed down.
Yes, though many of the constitutional rights do apply to all people, not just The People, it's just that there is one right that foreigners definitely don't have in any country in the world: the right to enter and stay in any country other than their own.
> we've seen that permanent residents can have their permanent residency canceled
If you're talking about Mahmoud Khalil, that was probably unlawful, and you should wait for your judicial branch to pass judgment before reaching the conclusion that fascism is lawful.
There have been other cases of permanent residents, and even naturalized citizens losing their residency or citizenship. Ironically many of those cases are about actual Nazis.
> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens
This is something that feels like it should be true but it isn't. The Constitution applies to everyone with some very specific exceptions to the jurisdiction of the United States.
What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
> This is something that feels like it should be true but it isn't. The Constitution applies to everyone with some very specific exceptions to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Some parts of the Constitution apply to everyone. For example, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments absolutely apply to all persons, but a while a foreigner accused of crimes in the U.S. has all the same rights to a fair trial, speedy trial, counsel, non-self-incrimination, confrontation, etc., they don't have a right not to be expelled from the country instead of having the trial.
> What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
Decisions of the court are not "gentlemen's agreements". They are binding precedent.
Generally between the courts' interpretation of Article II and various statutes the POTUS does have great latitude as to removal of foreigners but not as to trials of foreigners. (Nor do foreigners not have the right to life, liberty, and property. They can't be summarily executed, for example, nor can they summarily be imprisoned. And they have the right to liberty within the parameters of their visas. And generally they have the right to property within the jurisdiction of U.S. law.)
One would imagine that free speech would mean that foreigners wouldn't get deported at the border just for the mockery of, or having displeasure against the POTUS.
And even if it didn't mean that, it'd be very ironic for an administration, where one of its most powerful gray eminence admonished for example Germany for its "lack of free speech" (paraphrasing).
What were the actual texts? Have we gotten confirmation from homeland security if it was just harmless criticism? What if they were violent texts or threats of violence?
We haven't gotten the texts, but we do have the French statement that the denial was done due to the researcher's personal opinions about Trump's policy towards research.
Is there some reason to be sceptical about the validity of the French assessment? I'm fairly certain that if the researcher had actually claimed actual violence or similar in the texts, then France wouldn't have made this into a diplomatic incident. Do you have a reason to disagree?
Yes, there's plenty of reason to be skeptical without evidence. Hearsay happens all the time. Governments lie. When two governments say two different things, either or both of them could be lying.
Their only meaning, EVER was "free speech for anything I want to say, no matter how egregious. But only if I agree with it - if it makes me look bad, I should be able to ruin your life permanently over it."
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to foreign nationals applying to enter the country. It just doesn't. You can be denied entry for any reason. You don't have a right to visit another country. It's a privilege. There's no free speech issue here at all.
That being said, I suspect there is more to this story than the headline is alluding to, as there often is.
No, in a country that follows the rule of law, there's no such thing as “for any reason” it must be “reasons provided by laws”. If any bureaucrat can, for no legal reason, expel you, then it's the open door to abuse of power and corruption.
> You don't have a right to visit another country. It's a privilege.
In fact as a French citizen, the US has signed bilateral convention with my country that gives me the right to visit the US under a certain set of formalities depending on the circumstances, and this is reciprocal.
I've read that on Reddit and I'm now reading that Britain issued a travel warning... Adding that up plus all the things that can happen until next month, would you consider it safe for a Brazilian to visit the US is this climate?
Yes in that statistically you would probably be fine, over a million Brazilian tourists come to the US every year.
No in that it is much less safe to visit today then it was a year ago, and authorities will specifically be targeting people who look South American.
If you closely follow the rules of the visa you're using and you don't do anything to stand out, as in you just have a normal-looking tourist itinerary, then you'll probably be fine. If it's just a vacation I would probably pick somewhere else this year though.
I get put in secondary almost every time and it is pretty much always jam packed with sad people, although I am usually the only English speaker so I have trouble finding out what happened exactly. Sometimes they sit in chairs next to me, other times in immigration holding cell next to me. The incidence rate of something traumatizing happening has to be closer to 1+%
Looking at the stories it seems much safer to fly in than cross the land border.
This French guy flew in and was turned around. Unpleasant but much less unpleasant than the Canadian woman who crossed the land border from Mexico and was imprisoned in a for-profit prison for weeks while begging repeatedly to pay for a flight back to Canada (then after she was released, ICE claimed she would have been released earlier if they'd known she'd pay for her flight...)
Which in normal moral fair society doesn't change anything. But US treats other nationalities like subhumans, and thats not even the issue of current administration but a long term situation for at least 2 decades I keep following the topic.
But as long as its not happening to them or their closest ones US folks generally don't seem to care (enough). I don't think EU has it any better just to be clear, we humans seem to be generally deeply flawed creatures.
Treating people from other countries as a threat either politically or economically has nothing to do with think they are subhuman.
In fact, if it was actually what they thought they would allow entry to them for exploitation, because a subhuman cannot reason or compete properly right?
It's funny that the real bigots are realizing that plenty of people have had enough of the racist moralist and that they would rather had tightly controlled entry to their country.
In the case of the article, it's quite funny, because the guy was apparently a political dissident, one that does not even live in the country (so what he has to say is not only irrelevant but also dangerous because he won't have to bear the weight of his choices/propaganda).
Of course, this nonsense come from people complaining about Musk meddling in German politics. Before you can complain about others behavior, you need to fix yours so that it at least matches your stated ideal.
>He asked why I had gone to the San Diego border the second time to apply. I explained that that was where my lawyer’s offices were, and that he had wanted to accompany me to ensure there were no issues.
The problem is not that they have unreasonable rules, but that the implementation is very erratic/volatile/arbitrary right now. Trump orders + a layer of a mix of both Trump fanboys and Trump haters makes it hit or miss whether or not you will have problems or not.
The travel warning that the UK issued basically said "follow the rules when trying to enter the USA" which is kind of common sense anyway...
You should comply with all entry, visa and other conditions of entry. The authorities in the US set and enforce entry rules strictly. You may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules. If you’re not sure how these requirements apply to you, contact the US Embassy or a consulate in the UK. [1]
A little annoying given the current political climate, but it's not really that big of a deal.
An American relative of mine had this experience. She was entering the UK legally but the immigration officer decided something was off and they have an absolute right to decline entry. The last flight back to the USA had gone so she was held overnight in a local police station before flying back the next day.
That's unpleasant but flying back on the next available flight is still way better than the Canadian woman who was held for weeks despite begging to pay for her own ticket back to Canada.
The UK situation you describe has clear reasoning. The US system just seems to be throwing people into a black hole without rules.
I don't really care if someone profits off of prisoners, plus they haven't existed federally since 2022; might want to update your rejoinder.
Furthermore, I've had friends who entered the UK on the wrong visa for a degree be shoved into a holding cell then deported. Fortunately they were granted the right one later, but it's standard procedure to enforce your laws.
What about the US makes Europeans and other foreigners think they have a unique right to enter? That's a privilege for US citizens only.
Turning people away is understandable. Putting them in private prisons at taxpayer expense when they're begging to fly home is at best a waste of taxpayer money (from the "fiscal conservative" right?) and at worst a civil rights abuse. Sending Venezuelan asylum seekers to a labor camp in El Salvador is even worse.
> they haven't existed federally since 2022
I think you are misinformed:
> In 2025, CoreCivic announced it would reopen South Texas Family Residential Center, under ICE contract, with capacity to detain up to 2,400 people
> What about the US makes Europeans and other foreigners think they have a unique right to enter? That's a privilege for US citizens only.
Wait, what?
For one thing, there are treaties that guarantee that. Of course, the current administration has already broken quite a few treaties in the first 100 days, so what's one more?
For another thing, that's how science, industry and business work. I've been invited dozens of times to the US either to work with/for a university, to present results at conferences, to work with US companies. Cutting that seems a certain way to ensure the decline of US industry, business and science, and encourage all of this to happen elsewhere, whether it's Europe, China, India, Japan... Of course, that seems to be a common trend with the decisions of said administration, so... maybe that's the goal?
> You may be liable to arrest or detention if you break the rules.
The increased frequency of this is what seems to be new.
Of course a country isn't obliged to let you in. But throwing you into a for-profit prison is much worse than just refusing entry and turning you around.
Why are more people being imprisoned? Is this to meet a quota, to pump up statistics, to impress Trump's base?
If you're not a part of what they're profiling travelers for - the obvious stuff like drug smuggling, bringing copious amounts of money into or out of the country, or other contraband, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Anecdotal evidence is my last trip to go snowboarding in Banff in Alberta Canada. My parents came along because they'd never been to Banff and were excited about seeing the Canadian Rockies. In any case, we land in Alberta and are going through customs. Scary looking dude looks at our passports and asks what we're there for. I say, "snowboarding" my mom says, "site seeing" we immediately shoot each other a look like, "Oh shit, that wasn't good.". Without a blink, border guy told us to move on and keep the line moving.
We both spoke about it and agreed that whatever they were looking for, we clearly did not fit the profile they were screening for.
Just to clarify, parent poster asked about visiting the US but it appears your comment is about visiting Canada. Are you a US citizen that was visiting Canada, or did I misread your comment?
Remembering my mom's hippy friend when the Vietnam "conflict" was in full swing. He had tattooed "Fuck the USA" on the "saluting edge" of his right hand. It apparently worked as a deterrent to being drafted. (I understand it was costly to remove after the draft was over.)
If someone wanted to make a statement or make a point about the free U.S., one wonders what creative things one could assign as their phone wallpaper before going through customs.
I would only do this if you want to get strip searched, shackled, chained, driven around in a prisoner van, examined by doctors at your expense then released a day later without apology. Make sure your affairs are in order to be disappeared, before crossing.
I'm still in 4 figure debt from the last made up reason a CBPO used to fuck with me.
$2000 and flying 11 hours to get to LAX only to be turned around is a pretty expensive statement to make unless you did it as some sort of political stunt
Every country on planet Earth has their own rules and they all have every right to tell any non-citizen entering to fuck off at their whims. Sorry but that's how it works. The sense of entitlement here is mind-boggling. If I fly to $COUNTRY they have every right to put me on the next plane back for any reason (including pissing off customs in any way) and I have no recourse beyond shouting into the void.
People are not arguing whether US has the right; but whether they had good reason. As in, a better reason than disliking criticism of the administration or its policies (or name calling).
And everyone has a right to be excessively rude towards customer service employees. That doesn't mean that it's considered acceptable, or that others shouldn't be critical of people who do that.
If you wave a giant flag written "Free speech" for two hundred years, make it one of the central tenets of your nation's self-image, and give condescending lessons about it to others, you'd better be upholding it, lest you look like a royal hypocrite.
Anywhere else. If Canada finds out you have a DUI in your past, and they WILL find out because they are an advanced Western country with the resources and intelligence to do so, they will turn you away at the border. This is a well known fact and such a routine occurrence it has its own page on the Canadian government's website:
The funny thing is that this is both whataboutism and also irrelevant. While countries can turn foreign people away at their borders for any reason under international law (unless they're in specific protected classes of people, like refugees), this ability is most often reserved for actual crimes, not calling the Commander-in-Chief bad names or whatever.
Especially when the government in question advertises itself as being a beacon of free speech and all the rest of it. So at least it's hypocritical. And again, this is whataboutism. Just because Canada does something like this doesn't mean that Canada's pants have to also do it.
Ok, happy to be deported. The problem in the US right now is the for profit concentration camps where they retain the "arrested" people without a clue of when they'll be able to leave. Read the article of the Canadian lady; but not her case, but the cases of the othrr people detained in the concentration camps.
The only source is the French government? Nowhere can we find the name of the specific scientist, nor do we have any facts other than the word of the French government official (who wasn’t there.)
The fact that the FBI was also called in tells me that there is a lot more to this story than what Reuters is reporting.
The US is notable for its freedom of speech and expression in its constitution. The kinds of remarks made by this French citizen would have to constitute active, meaningful threats against the state (read: more than just "The US president is a dumbass") to fall outside of our freedom of speech laws.
I can tell my elected officials "I hope you choke on that grape". I can't tell my elected officials "I'm going to make you choke on that grape".
along the same lines, a student's visa got revoked due to protesting an "unsuitable" side in the Gaza war. [1]
in the past having a contrarian opinion would get you ostracised or fired maybe. but restricting access post grant is a new trend in the wrong direction.
133 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadThis is very scary. I’m an American community college instructor in Silicon Valley who does research with domestic and international colleagues; in fact, I will be in Japan this summer as a visiting researcher. If people could be denied entry to the United States over harmless political opinions shared electronically, then this hurts our ability to collaborate in-person with foreign researchers in the United States, and this also hurts our ability to hold academic conferences here.
It’s one thing if the scientist made threats or advocated overthrow; that is not protected free speech. But if it’s just an opinion or even name-calling, then this denial of entry is flatly wrong and flatly un-American.
Perhaps it’s time for prominent US academic conferences with international attendees to move to Canada, France, Japan, or some other place where scientists and science in general are not under attack by their government.
If someone says "presidential democracies are historically unstable, the US would do better under a parliamentary system" is that advocating overthrow?
When Trump said "Proud Boys stand back and stand by" was he advocating overthrow?
At any rate, this is just a distraction from how the Trump administration has been seeking to consolidate executive power unconstitutionally since taking office a 2nd time.
No, there are no jobs Americans don't want to do. As you say, its a massive country with 300 million people, there's a diverse set of skills and labor pool here. They just want market-level wages to do them.
There's been migration, it's been largely controlled migration for the past 120 years, with no expectation that migrants would be subsidized and provided with shelter, cell phones, etc. or that we'd allow gangs from Venezuela to establish footholds and allow human and drug trafficking to pass through completely unchecked.
There is nothing Trump has done that any previous president hasn't already done. Presidents have a lot of power under the Constitution and even more that Congress has delegated to them over the years.
> There is nothing Trump has done that any previous president hasn't already done.
How many presidents managed to crash a booming economy in just a few months?
If you want actual data to attribute blame, see https://www.cato.org/commentary/trumps-immigration-policies-... and recall how Trump caused a bipartisan effort to actually try to fix the immigration mess to collapse.
Illegal immigration hit record levels under Biden's administration:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...
and the Roosevelt hotel:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/mayor-eric-adams-says-nycs-roosev...
Unsustainable and terrible waste of money. There are millions of people that would pay money out of their own pockets to come to the U.S., educated people who are self-sufficient and we wasted money on making a bad problem worse.
So, the data that is presented and documented is irrelevant and dismissible?
> Illegal immigration hit record levels under Biden's administration
As did deportations (e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o)
> https://www.foxnews.com/us/mayor-eric-adams-says-nycs-roosev...
Yes, the Roosevelt Hotel was used for housing for asylum seekers. US immigration law allows for asylum seekers. Those asylum seekers must be housed somewhere. Certain states (e.g., Texas) transferred asylum seekers to New York City for a (arguably justified) political stunt. New York City used the Roosevelt Hotel.
> Unsustainable and terrible waste of money. There are millions of people that would pay money out of their own pockets to come to the U.S., educated people who are self-sufficient and we wasted money on making a bad problem worse.
That isn't how US immigration law works. Everyone agrees US Immigration law is a disaster. As I mentioned, there was a bipartisan agreement to help fix it. Trump derailed that effort.
The FBI defines terrorism as: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."
Clearly, criminal trespass on someone's Tesla to discourage Elon Musk from taking actions against your ideological goals falls within that category.
This is known as the "Shirley Exception", https://vocal.media/theSwamp/the-shirley-exception
The reality is that people are being arrested and deported with no evidence of advocating violence. Here are some examples. https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-denver-8d5a7cc0-04fd...
“Free speech” has always been about protecting people against exactly this, but since they have spent almost a decade destroying the meaning of the phrase, they can now get rid of the freedom it entails.
It is our personal responsibility to learn what is true and what is false, and then hold both ourselves and our elected leaders to that standard.
For the good of community, its citizens and visitors, and the world at large.
Also, this is an action by CBP, not by the POTUS. I seriously doubt there was any order by POTUS regarding the speech of foreigners abroad. Most likely this is just a zealous CBP agent making this decision. I've been given the third degree by immigration officers in the U.S. and Canada, and it always felt very random.
Given Musk and Vance have lectured other countries on 'free speech' I think this argument no longer works. If they're so invested in the rules on speech in various European countries they're hypocrites when they deny it to foreign nationals.
Also, calling someone else's point "sophistry" is not exactly nice, and one should instead assume good faith.
People in Europe, and especially the UK, are absolutely being imprisoned for speech that in the U.S. is protected speech. You can argue about degrees of free speech if you like, but the fact remains that we have a great deal more legal protections for political (and other) speech in the U.S. than in Europe.
But apart from that, yes, free speech!
Either way, applications for visas do not have to be accepted.
Americans talk crap about Trump and Biden and every other leader in this country. Here you are doing it on a US based website. Nobody cares.
The context is speech in the country you are a citizen of. I'm sure citizens of all countries can badmouth Trump at any European airport, but that's not a good test of whether citizens of a European country A have free speech rights within their own country especially when speaking against their own governments.
Additionally, the CBP spokesperson[1] defended the action, and despite reporters asking questions, the administration has done nothing to walk back the action or apologize. All signs point to the administration being very okay with stuff like this happening.
[1]: This might not be widely known, but one of the first actions that happens on inauguration day is the replacement of US government agency spokespersons with new political appointees. One of the powers of the executive branch is the bully pulpit and smart administrations seek to use it from day one.
How is it not?
> How is it not?
I'd like to remind you that we don't know what it was the they wrote. The news article doesn't specify, and CBP did not provide any details.
The French government has had access to this info before addressing a complaint.
Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents. SCOTUS has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment's protections as extending beyond just citizens and permanent residents in matters of freedom of speech and religion. While some rights, such as voting, are restricted to citizens, the First Amendment's protections apply to anyone within the U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.
The amendment is short and clear: "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Even if one argued "the people" refers only to U.S. Citizens (on what basis, who knows), that would only restrict assembly and petitions. The first part is unambiguously comprehensive and clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added by me.)
The Second Amendment does ("... the right of the People ..."). And the Fourteenth Amendment specifically refers to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are taken to apply to all persons in the U.S., citizens, residents, and otherwise, even though they say nothing of the sort.
If one wished to say that the 2A's mention of "the People" implies that the other amendments don't apply to foreigners, that would have perverse results such as denying all due process to foreigners. The contrary is true. Therefore the other protections do apply to foreigners except for the fact that foreigners can be expelled, and there is no protection against that (in principle not even due process protections against removal except as granted by statute).
The Constitution is not just what's written on it but what the courts have said in their interpretations. I'm quite sure that the 1A does not protect foreigners against removal for their speech is not controversial in legal circles as a statement of actual jurisprudence.
So perhaps not a violation of the Constitution. Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for. Is it legal? Perhaps. Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Thanks.
> Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for.
That's an "if". We don't know what the CBP agent saw. But let's assume it's harmless, then I agree that it's damaging to the Administration's brand, but I also wouldn't agree (yet) that it happened because of Trump's orders.
> Is it legal? Perhaps.
Current law gives the executive branch the power to turn away foreigners for almost any reason.
> Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Almost certainly, especially if neither CBP makes a more useful statement nor the WH comes out and clears things up. It's entirely possible that the WH will not take notice and that CBP doesn't want to engage the public on this.
Some years ago the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission started going into convention venues in Texas and arresting anyone they could argue was publicly intoxicated. That led to a spate of conventions boycotting the state until the TABC backed down.
If you're talking about Mahmoud Khalil, that was probably unlawful, and you should wait for your judicial branch to pass judgment before reaching the conclusion that fascism is lawful.
For example [John Demjanjuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk#Loss_of_US_citi...).
This is something that feels like it should be true but it isn't. The Constitution applies to everyone with some very specific exceptions to the jurisdiction of the United States.
What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
Some parts of the Constitution apply to everyone. For example, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments absolutely apply to all persons, but a while a foreigner accused of crimes in the U.S. has all the same rights to a fair trial, speedy trial, counsel, non-self-incrimination, confrontation, etc., they don't have a right not to be expelled from the country instead of having the trial.
> What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
Decisions of the court are not "gentlemen's agreements". They are binding precedent.
Generally between the courts' interpretation of Article II and various statutes the POTUS does have great latitude as to removal of foreigners but not as to trials of foreigners. (Nor do foreigners not have the right to life, liberty, and property. They can't be summarily executed, for example, nor can they summarily be imprisoned. And they have the right to liberty within the parameters of their visas. And generally they have the right to property within the jurisdiction of U.S. law.)
And even if it didn't mean that, it'd be very ironic for an administration, where one of its most powerful gray eminence admonished for example Germany for its "lack of free speech" (paraphrasing).
Is there some reason to be sceptical about the validity of the French assessment? I'm fairly certain that if the researcher had actually claimed actual violence or similar in the texts, then France wouldn't have made this into a diplomatic incident. Do you have a reason to disagree?
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
That being said, I suspect there is more to this story than the headline is alluding to, as there often is.
> You don't have a right to visit another country. It's a privilege.
In fact as a French citizen, the US has signed bilateral convention with my country that gives me the right to visit the US under a certain set of formalities depending on the circumstances, and this is reciprocal.
Update: typos
No in that it is much less safe to visit today then it was a year ago, and authorities will specifically be targeting people who look South American.
If you closely follow the rules of the visa you're using and you don't do anything to stand out, as in you just have a normal-looking tourist itinerary, then you'll probably be fine. If it's just a vacation I would probably pick somewhere else this year though.
"none of those who enter the Cecot ever leave on foot"
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-deported-el-salvador-ali...
This French guy flew in and was turned around. Unpleasant but much less unpleasant than the Canadian woman who crossed the land border from Mexico and was imprisoned in a for-profit prison for weeks while begging repeatedly to pay for a flight back to Canada (then after she was released, ICE claimed she would have been released earlier if they'd known she'd pay for her flight...)
But as long as its not happening to them or their closest ones US folks generally don't seem to care (enough). I don't think EU has it any better just to be clear, we humans seem to be generally deeply flawed creatures.
In fact, if it was actually what they thought they would allow entry to them for exploitation, because a subhuman cannot reason or compete properly right?
It's funny that the real bigots are realizing that plenty of people have had enough of the racist moralist and that they would rather had tightly controlled entry to their country.
In the case of the article, it's quite funny, because the guy was apparently a political dissident, one that does not even live in the country (so what he has to say is not only irrelevant but also dangerous because he won't have to bear the weight of his choices/propaganda).
Of course, this nonsense come from people complaining about Musk meddling in German politics. Before you can complain about others behavior, you need to fix yours so that it at least matches your stated ideal.
As someone not familiar with the case, I personally did find it pertinent information.
>He asked why I had gone to the San Diego border the second time to apply. I explained that that was where my lawyer’s offices were, and that he had wanted to accompany me to ensure there were no issues.
The problem is not that they have unreasonable rules, but that the implementation is very erratic/volatile/arbitrary right now. Trump orders + a layer of a mix of both Trump fanboys and Trump haters makes it hit or miss whether or not you will have problems or not.
Calling this a "warning" is stupid.
Or just be turned around?
You do at least get your own cell in the UK.
The UK situation you describe has clear reasoning. The US system just seems to be throwing people into a black hole without rules.
Furthermore, I've had friends who entered the UK on the wrong visa for a degree be shoved into a holding cell then deported. Fortunately they were granted the right one later, but it's standard procedure to enforce your laws.
What about the US makes Europeans and other foreigners think they have a unique right to enter? That's a privilege for US citizens only.
> they haven't existed federally since 2022
I think you are misinformed:
> In 2025, CoreCivic announced it would reopen South Texas Family Residential Center, under ICE contract, with capacity to detain up to 2,400 people
Wait, what?
For one thing, there are treaties that guarantee that. Of course, the current administration has already broken quite a few treaties in the first 100 days, so what's one more?
For another thing, that's how science, industry and business work. I've been invited dozens of times to the US either to work with/for a university, to present results at conferences, to work with US companies. Cutting that seems a certain way to ensure the decline of US industry, business and science, and encourage all of this to happen elsewhere, whether it's Europe, China, India, Japan... Of course, that seems to be a common trend with the decisions of said administration, so... maybe that's the goal?
The increased frequency of this is what seems to be new.
Of course a country isn't obliged to let you in. But throwing you into a for-profit prison is much worse than just refusing entry and turning you around.
Why are more people being imprisoned? Is this to meet a quota, to pump up statistics, to impress Trump's base?
Anecdotal evidence is my last trip to go snowboarding in Banff in Alberta Canada. My parents came along because they'd never been to Banff and were excited about seeing the Canadian Rockies. In any case, we land in Alberta and are going through customs. Scary looking dude looks at our passports and asks what we're there for. I say, "snowboarding" my mom says, "site seeing" we immediately shoot each other a look like, "Oh shit, that wasn't good.". Without a blink, border guy told us to move on and keep the line moving.
We both spoke about it and agreed that whatever they were looking for, we clearly did not fit the profile they were screening for.
If someone wanted to make a statement or make a point about the free U.S., one wonders what creative things one could assign as their phone wallpaper before going through customs.
I'm still in 4 figure debt from the last made up reason a CBPO used to fuck with me.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
To wit:
committing a crime, including driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Especially when the government in question advertises itself as being a beacon of free speech and all the rest of it. So at least it's hypocritical. And again, this is whataboutism. Just because Canada does something like this doesn't mean that Canada's pants have to also do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=991kRp8KUmo
The fact that the FBI was also called in tells me that there is a lot more to this story than what Reuters is reporting.
I can tell my elected officials "I hope you choke on that grape". I can't tell my elected officials "I'm going to make you choke on that grape".
in the past having a contrarian opinion would get you ostracised or fired maybe. but restricting access post grant is a new trend in the wrong direction.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/03/14/video-columbia-universit...