> maybe we should be reaching out to other countries and telling them what rights they have.

I don't think it is a matter of telling "other countries" what rights they have or impose the U.S.'s view on people who aren't citizens but of consistently exercising human rights within U.S. jurisdiction (which includes visa applications).

I'm not religious, so I don't believe in a "creator" in the most literal sense, but doesn't this imply that (from the government's perspective) that these rights were given by God, and cannot be taken away by a government?

Again, I'm aware that the declaration is not a legally binding document, but I feel like it symbolizes the ideals of what the US was supposed to be.

I'm not a lawyer or a political philosopher or an ethicist, I'm just a mediocre software engineer, so I will acknowledge that I'm speaking out of my ass on this; I'm just a guy who has read a few books and has a frustrating adherence to my principles.

This is no different, for example, from applying for a research grant and getting denied on the basis of the application. The government examined your speech in the application and decided not to give you money, is this a free speech suppression?

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Which would seem to be irrespective of nationality. I think that today, we understand that "men" was meant as a generic term for "person", but the rest of that sentence seems to say that everybody who is a creation of God (which is understood to be everybody) has those unalienable rights. It sure reads to me like it says "everyone on Earth has these rights" not just "people in these colonies have these rights".

I am trolling a little bit here, since I don't actually believe we (the U.S.) should insist on our Constitutional protections applying to non-citizens. But that is what it says to me.

It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws.

It's a nice thing Americans are proud of, but for example, The Supreme Court can't cite in a ruling, unless it's also in-line with The Constitution.

That said, I think it's perfectly useful to demonstrate the possible intent of the founders. Even if you can't directly cite a law out of it, it can still be useful as a tool to figure out what the founders were going for.

Disclaimer: Not a legal expert.

Ex: Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976)

The Plaintiffs argued that they were denied Social Security benefits because they were "illegitimate" children of their father even though the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were related.

The court held that among other reasons, because as defined in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", that there was no differentiation between a "legitimate" child and an "illegitimate" child in the eyes of the government.

There's a few other cases, but that's one that I've studied the most.

The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”

There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”

The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”

There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”

The Supreme Court is itself the sole arbiter of this exception, so in practice they can cite it whenever they want to. The Federalist Papers are cited in a number of supreme court rulings. While one could argue that they are equally relevant to the Declaration, it would be hard to argue that they are less relevant.

Likewise, I expect that it is not in the USA's best interest to do this, let alone fair to the person who would immigrate into the the US.

Is this meant as a straw man?

When does criticism become hate, and how to do you judge speech anyways. Reminds me of that guy in Hong Kong who was given a huge fine and banned from trading in the HKSAR because he said Evergrande would go insolvent. Obviously a hate crime.

is semantically different from

> "The right of each person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

A group can have a right in the general sense that is restricted from individuals in that group. Note that this is a different construct than is used in the First Amendment (and I have a hard time believing that the framers took their semantic decisions in drafting these phrases lightly):

> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

In the first I'm specifically referring that it says the right is to the people to petition grievances. The wording pretty clearly doesn't prohibit congress from stopping non-people from assembling/petitioning.

If you can't have a gun you are necessarily not a person based on the present day interpretation of the courts. Therefore most aliens are not people and law can prohibit their grievances (derogatory posts perhaps) and assembly and abridge their protection from search and seizure.

Note:

>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

Lol you purposefully chopped off the part where some of that was explicitly qualified to 'people' rather than to anyone!

You mean the bit after the clause I cited, which applies to a different thing than the freedom of speech?

My objection, to be clear, is your insistence on bending over backwards to justify the assertion that the denial of one right necessarily implies the denial of other rights based on a strange inversion of the idea of "personhood".

Otherwise, what does it mean to you? Is your view that simply being physically capable of doing something means you're 'free' to do it?

Do you think people in North Korea have freedom of speech? After all, they can say whatever they like. It just comes with a cost (life in a labor camp).

Which seems a bit silly, most people understand it to mean 'free' above a certain underlying threshold.

e.g. swear words in a kindergarten

Every possible human action does not have a punishment or a deterrent applied by those with power.

Freedom to do X means there's no punishment for doing X.

Since every living member of society has some non-zero amount, it would still be the case that free speech is practically impossible, if you set the bar too low. As the chances of that applying to at least 1 person out of 8 billion is pretty close to 100%.

So then the question is, how high exactly is the bar above zero?

Would it be okay to deny entry to a foreigner because they're black? Or gay? They don't have a right to enter anyways, so I guess it's okay.

This is really about "how does the negative things they say about the US affect how they'll improve the US by being there, if at all" which is really the general rule for most immigration; how can this person help and improve the country they're entering.

It's "right of entry/movement" that is impacted, and that along with a few others (voting) isn't extended to non-citizens at all.

While the United States is certainly big enough to ignore a few insults, some derogatory statements might imply a willingness to do the country or its people harm.

The Declaration of Independence declares it self-evident that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the purpose of governments is to secure these rights, subject to the consent of the governed.

Unless I'm misreading it, the Declaration of Independence doesn't directly mention freedom of speech.

Also, presumably these tools are being used to prioritize applicants based on a benefit/risk assessment. If the purpose isn't to deny entry as a form of punishment, then freedom of speech presumably wouldn't come into the picture. Intent matters. Prioritization isn't necessarily punishment.

“My wife is a would-be immigrant so I am sympathetic”

Or sometimes

“My partner is half X So I understand discrimination against X”

Or even sometimes

“I am in category Y so there’s no way I can hate people in category Y”

I don’t think that line of reasoning makes sense. People often times carve out mental exemptions for people close to them that they care about, not for everyone in the same category. Further more, it is totally possible to love a person but not every quality about them. Also just because you are close to someone doesn’t mean you understand entirely their struggles

It's preemptive defense against inevitable knee-jerk "you're anti-immigrant" ad hominem attacks. I wish I didn't feel the need to preempt such diversions, but that's the world in which we live.

What you are talking about here, is that we as a people, have no right to listen to what you say and make decisions based on that. What you are saying is that if there's a guy outside your house yelling that you're an evil bad person who should rot in hell, you obligated to ignore his words in your decision to open your door and invite him in, because he has a right to say anything he wants. Do you... Do you get robbed a lot? If you do, you should observe the world around you, and make decisions based on those observations. This will greatly help you not get robbed a lot.