This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote.
For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
Not a lawyer, so I can only speculate as a layperson
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
Just to add a bit on this. The (U.S) Bill of Rights applies to any person on U.S. soil. (That is a common misconception apparently but like many modern constitutions it refers to persons and not citizens). There is the gray area surrounding around the periphery of the U.S. and borders (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)
(Essentially the U.S. government reasons that the area surrounding the border is U.S. soil for CBP, and not U.S. soil for anyone else.)
The first amendment comes afterward, but I have to admit I have no idea if there's any case law that it's unconstitutional to deny a visa on the basis of the applicant's viewpoints.
1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.
That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.
Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words.
The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."
> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work.
Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.
If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.
For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.
I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.
after reading through your comments, I'm not convinced that I was spreading a falsehood. The fact that there are some legal policies on treatment of non-nationals is not the same thing as non-nationals being fully protected by constitutional rights. They are not. Other comments above have also said this. (I submitted simultaneously as someone who gave a better phrased answer but couldn't figure out how to delete my redundant comment).
> palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human
I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.
Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds.
The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says:
"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.
Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.
Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.
Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
"cherry picked"? I pointed you directly to the decision that SCOTUS rendered on this matter.
And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.
Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.
If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.
This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).
> "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
People in the United States on tourist visas are not prohibited from bearing arms (in fact gun ranges are major tourist destinations in some parts of the country). Purchasing arms is subject to a higher legal standard, but is also not wholesale prohibited, just subject to a few extra rules. For example, a tourist who acquires a hunting license in any state can purchase a firearm.
...and in any case, this is not a citizen/non-citizen issue, as GP claims - lawful permanent residents have the same 2nd amendment rights as citizens.
Well yes, but that is a privilege that the country bestows upon you as a token of good will and faith - not a natural right under the constituion; and I would not expect it either. Should I be allowed the affordances of the 1st amendment while on American soil to advocate for the fall of the American republic? I would be deported very swiftly.
In the time the constitution was framed, "well regulated" meant properly trained and not "subject to 30 million pages of government control and criminilization".
If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Please stick with weapons available at time constitution was written of not very reliable ~3 shots per minute fire rate. Gunpowder cannons are also OK.
Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument.
Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.
You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.
There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category.
"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."
Civilians owned cannon, artillery pieces and warships in the revolutionary war time frame.
A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.
The framers wanted the people to have access to the same weapons the government did - to allow the people to have a very real check over the overreach of said government.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor - if you think when they wrote the second amendment they didn't think "gee, maybe guns will shoot faster someday" then I don't know what to tell you.
as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
> Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders?
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.