Your statement about special rights for Visa holders is a nonsequitur
I don't think this is relevant (or even correct, but that doesn't matter). 1A is simply not a right (or "control on the behavior of the government") that applies here: visas are issued at the discretion of the State Department.
Or more simply: I don't think a visa holder could successfully argue that the State Department is obligated to renew their visa solely on 1A grounds. If this isn't the case, then an argument against revoking would fail similarly.
> Trump himself hinted at as much during his speech. “The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act,” he said. “Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”
As best I can tell, the State Department exercises the same of rules (enshrined in law) during both renewal and revocation.
The adjacent thread points out that visa eligibility already contains explicit proscriptions around expression: advocating for a designated terrorist group makes one ineligible for a visa, per federal law. I'm not aware of any challenge to that rule that's been mounted on 1A grounds.
(I don't think anything Trump says about the Take It Down Act is relevant here. That's an entirely separate miscarriage of justice that does have 1A relevance.)
1A would obviously be material.
But again, I cannot emphasize enough how much all of this is pretextual: the people doing this don’t give a damn about Hamas, or anti-Semitism, or anything else. It’s about deporting people, full stop.
[1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
Sure, there's a law. Try and enforce it.
Unless I'm mistaken, all the agencies with the power to arrest a member of the Executive branch, lie within the Executive branch itself and they are all controlled, or soon will be controlled, by persons appointed by the President. All of these persons are expected to be more faithful to the current President than to the Constitution.
Which means: even if Congress wanted to stop him, there's nothing that it can do to enforce that.
I wonder what is the process for that finding. Is a court involved?
It should not be unilateral decision by state department.
My understanding is that the State Department can revoke a visa without any court involvement. There's a waiver process, but that process also entirely sidesteps the courts.
> It should not be unilateral decision by state department.
I agree completely.
I think a better argument here is to observe that the use of “AI” here is entirely pretextual, as is the connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is purely an action within the existing xenophobic policies of the administration, dressed up against current topics to make that less obvious. The goal is to deport people full stop; these are just “easy” cases to make, and they’re hoping that the next round of people to be deported keep cheering until it’s their turn.