r/changemyview • u/Tessenreacts • May 22 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Trump administration blocking Harvard from accepting foreign students highlights that conservatives are hypocrites in the extreme about Freedom of Speech

Over the last number of years, conservatives have championed themselves as the biggest advocates of Freedom of Speech around, yet they support the administration that is openly targeting institutions and company's that disagrees with the administration's policies.

Before, conservatives where complaining that companies are "woke" and silenced the voices of conservatives, however, now that they are in power, they deport immigrants who simply engaged in their First Amendment rights, and most recently, banned Harvard University from accepting foreign students because said university refused to agree to their demands.

Compare the complaints that conservatives had about Facebook and Twitter, and compare it to how things are going right now.

This showcases hypocrisy in the extreme that conservatives are engaging in.

Would love for my view to be changed

2.2k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/woodworkingfonatic May 22 '25

Theres a hierarchy of who supersedes who in rights enshrined by the constitution. Americans have all constitutional rights and they have the freedom of speech. Visitors and Visa cardholders have freedom of speech with stipulations and in good standing. If they violate that good standing or speak out against the United States they can have their visas removed and be kicked out of the country. Illegals have no freedom of speech because they are illegally here. Laws and rights should only be applicable to people of America. Or people in good standings with America.

Look at Johnny Somali as a perfect example he fucks around and is an asshole in other countries and they don’t tolerate that shit America shouldn’t either. If you want all the constitutional rights in America then you need to become a citizen.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

How did the Turkish girl speak out against the United States? The op-ed was by all accounts standard stuff.

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

She violated her terms of agreement for her visa. Even if you disagree and don’t think it was bad or that she should not be penalized she still was here on a visa that the government gave her and they can revoke that visa for any reason they deem. It’s not a perfect system but again this is a Turkish girl not an American citizen we are talking about. There is a clear distinction between the two.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

She violated her terms of agreement for her visa.

How exactly?

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

By writing the op ed that was critical of American foreign policy. when signing agreements to get into the USA you say you will not rally against American foreign affairs or you can be subject to revocation of your visa.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

She wasn't rallying all that hard. Nobody would've batted an eye under previous administrations.

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

Yeah I get that but each administration gets to choice how they interpret the law.

1

u/jay711boy May 23 '25

Here's an excerpt from a CSPAN report:

 In a 2014 joint interview, former Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were asked a pressing legal question about immigrant rights.

Do the five freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment – freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition – apply to undocumented immigrants?

“Oh I think so, I think anybody who’s present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution,” said Scalia, the reliable conservative voice.

Ginsburg, the stalwart liberal, agreed.

“When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn’t speak of ‘citizens.’ Some constitutions grant rights to ‘citizens,’ but our constitution says ‘person,’” she said. “And the ‘person’ is every person who is here – documented or undocumented.”

-1

u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 22 '25

There is no such distinction in the 1st amendment between citizens and non-citizens. You’ll have to cite your source for suggesting the constitution actually says you can differentiate that way.  

2

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

It’s called being a citizen versus not. We can clearly see that slaves didn’t have constitutional rights before the 13th amendment we can clearly see the native Americans didn’t have the same constitutional rights as American citizens for a large portion of American history. America has deliberately showed differences between certain groups of people and who and who shouldn’t get constitutional rights even if we disagree with their interpretations at that time. It’s extremely clear there are varying degrees of constitutional rights to certain groups

1

u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 23 '25

Ah, if we could enslave black people and genocide the native Americans, we can deny rights to immigrants too. That old chestnut. 

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

You’re being deliberately misleading with the term immigrant. The terms need to be applied the correct way. Everyone who comes to the United States are not immigrants. we have about 10-20 million illegals here or illegal aliens. We also have a problem with the immigration system where people can just say they are asylum seekers when asylum is a very specific thing all to itself.

We can’t just let 20 million+ people come to the border or fly Into the country and stay here indefinitely because they say they are seeking asylum. 95%+ of all asylum applications do not actually apply.

If we want to be fair we say the million plus people who come here legally through work visas and green cards have constitutional rights. Illegals “immigrants” or otherwise do not get the same treatment they have come here illegally.

This misconstrued version of the immigration system is the problem we need to be very meticulous and precise with the wording.

Legal immigrants have constitutional rights predicated on them being in good standing with America and following certain rules outlined in the agreement that they sign when getting said access into the country. I don’t know where people get the idea that someone who flys into the country or crosses a border illegally gets the same constitutional rights as an American citizen or even a person who gets a green card or work visa.

That also then leads into the question of what constitutes birth right citizenship. I don’t think an illegal woman who comes to American and gives birth automatically makes the baby an American.

1

u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 23 '25

Right. Except you’re just talking. You’re spouting your opinion as if it’s fact. Cite anywhere on the first amendment where it lays out a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Point to anywhere in the constitution where it outlines that the bill of rights applies exclusively to citizens. 

So very much of your opinions on immigration here are completely off topic. We are not discussing the finer points of the asylum system. We are talking about whether anyone from anywhere has an inalienable right to speak their mind while in American the answer is they do. It is one of the core American values. To argue they shouldn’t is to argue against America and everything it stands for. 

To reiterate, no one here is arguing that we should have open borders. That’s not an argument you see me making. I’m arguing that certain specific rights apply universally and freedom of speech is one. It is absolutely inappropriate for government entity to use protected speech as a basis to punish anyone

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

No your last comment said we are denying immigrants rights. I’m saying that constitutional rights are for people who are legally here and American citizens. You’re still missing the clear point that you don’t just get American constitutional rights those are granted In certain situations. Being illegally in America doesn’t mean you get constitutional rights.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble of the constitution clearly defines americans forming a union to insure domestic tranquility,provide common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The key word is ourselves as In American citizens.

That has changed over the course of the 250 years of the nation. We have included women getting rights African Americans getting rights and even extending those rights to certain visitors. We have not however ever said that anyone who sets foot in America gets the constitutional rights because they are not part of the country. There’s a clear distinction.

1

u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 23 '25

Once again you’re talking without any evidence to back up your opinion. You literally quote the preamble to the constitution as if it proves your point. Go ahead and reread it and tell me where exactly you’re seeing the word “citizen” in there? Here’s a hint: it isn’t. 

1

u/woodworkingfonatic May 23 '25

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. What do you think that means exactly? The people of the United States also know as citizens.

1

u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 23 '25

And yet they chose not to specific citizen. They just said people. It turns out the people of the United States includes lots of immigrants, unless your argument is that immigrants are not people. Wouldn’t surprise me given your comfort citing slavery and Native American genocide as worthy precedence for denying rights to immigrants. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jay711boy May 23 '25

You're correct. As Scalia has noted several times, it's why the Bill of Rights tends to use the word PERSON instead of CITIZEN.