Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.
I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans.
As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.
It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above.
Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
Yet if a citizen of the country makes the same identical speech and has the same identical ideology, it’s now 100% acceptable and should carry no legal consequences? What is it about the specific combination of speech and citizenship, which suddenly creates a danger for society? What about speech which is done anonymously, is that more or less dangerous that the same speech made by a known citizen? Should all speech require proof of citizenship beforehand?
So .. where are the speech rules for visa holders written down?
The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible.
What are the speech laws that apply here?
Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?
> You're not being imprisoned, executed, or fined. You're being sent home.
Why do you think this matters? Further, why do you think this isn't a punishment (often of greater impact than a fine? Nothing like paying for 3/4 of a top tier ivy diploma only to be sent home a few semesters before graduating - nifty little 100k fine right there...)
These are clear punishments applied by the admin towards a group of people making specific speech they don't like.
You are ok with that.
Ipso facto - you are not pro free speech.
I... don't really know why you're bothering to argue that you are.
