Señor Doggo on Warpcast

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/politics

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Alex pfp

@asenderling.eth

Between this and ICE posting today that they want to stop illegal 'ideas' from crossing the border, this is some of the most authoritarian free-speech infringement from the US government we've ever seen. Indefensible and incredibly alarming.

3 replies

1 recast

20 reactions

sparkz pfp

this is literally what the first amendment aims to protect. future law students will be reading these cases in con law in the not so distant future.

1 reply

0 recast

8 reactions

Señor Doggo pfp

The first amendment protects your ability to speak, not the consequences of speaking Immigration law and enforcement is not a 1A issue I am broadly against how they are handling the issue because it makes the US look weak and scares foreign visitors, however its not a 1A issue and claiming that it is undermines your point

3 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Alex pfp

@asenderling.eth

So if Harris won in 2024 she would be able to revoke Visas and start deporting any lawful permanent resident who attended a Trump rally or has a social media post in favor of MAGA so long as she says it's against the National Security interest of the US?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

Yes, USCIS can deny Visas or revoke Visas per their own internal polices, it is not based on a 1A issue, it is at discretion of the state dept If you don't like that, you can call your Congressman and demand they institute protections, but I severely doubt that any judge would agree that it's a 1A issue if you take it to court Its a bad policy, but not unsound

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Alex pfp

@asenderling.eth

I agree there's some legal complexity here and understand you're not saying you're in favor of this policy, but I think you're incorrect in believing the Executive's discretion to revoke Visas has primacy over 1a protections. I feel confident that the courts, up to the Supreme Court, will overrule the admin in cases where it's clearly only speech they're using as basis for Visa revocation.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

The court will have to prove that yes, because it is a legally complex question, and in the meantime you can be placed into a facility based on the policy/discretion of USCIS We've given pretty broad authority to the government on this matter, with abuses spanning back to Bush and Obama eras. If you don't like that, you should advocate for those authorities to be removed

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

And by the way, they wouldn't be litigating the 1A issue, they would be litigating how USCIS handled the situation, and their policies that lead to the situation Arguing 1A principles directly in a lawsuit is a surefire way to lose a lot of money

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sparkz pfp

i have a feeling only one of us in this convo is an attorney and it isn’t you.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

Are you a professional litigator?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sparkz pfp

bc they’re the only ones who understand con law? lmao

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

I'm asking if you have experience litigating these matters (and thus a relevant opinion), or if basically you're making an argument from authority in order to shut down actual debate

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sparkz pfp

and i’m telling you you don’t need litigation experience to have a fundamental knowledge of constitutional law and how it applies to the facts in this case. in fact, con law is a requisite 1st year course for all law students. but how would you know that.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Señor Doggo pfp

You definitely argue like a 1st year lol

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

sparkz pfp

thanks. 1Ls go hard

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions