Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?
> No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home.
We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse.
My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you)
But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate."
Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now".
And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements...
I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted".
Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted?
Are you unable to comprehend how those are related?
Do you not care?
Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all?
Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.
I'm saying that "free speech" means they can say things without being intentionally targeted for removal by the government.
These people aren't illegal immigrants - we're talking about revoking the visas for people here legally under visa programs.
So go answer the question (or keep desperately refusing to...):
Why should a visa holder be targeted and removed for making use of their free speech? How does that reconcile in your head with "I'm all for free speech".
---
> Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?
This is... gently put - A stupid fucking response. I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech. I think speech shouldn't really impact their visa outside of some clear and sane limits (ex - if they advocate violently overthrowing the US government... sure, lets talk about that visa).
They are here legally with legal visa - why do you confidently proclaim that you are for free speech if you believe that their speech should result in revoked visas?
That's not free speech. That's curtailed speech. AKA - you are not pro free speech.
> I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech.
You seem to think that being sent to your own country is a punishment. I do not. This is going to be a sticking point if you are trying to convince me of something.
