An F-1 visa carries conditions established by Congress and administered through the executive’s foreign-affairs authority, which means continued presence depends upon compliance with the legal framework governing that invitation. Judge Wise’s ruling allows a temporary visitor’s speech claim to override statutory discretion and a review bar designed to keep sensitive immigration judgments within the political branches. That approach transfers visa policy from accountable officials to a federal judge whose preferred constitutional balance cannot replace the one Congress enacted. The government should appeal, force a clear appellate ruling on the statutory limits, and restore the distinction between protected expression and permission to remain.
Bravo! Such a well written post, as always. Love this particular paragraph.
“Someone will say that revocation is just punishment for speech under another name. Revocation of a permission is not punishment in the constitutional sense. No one is jailed, fined, or prosecuted. The student loses nothing he owned. He loses a conditional invitation, the same thing roughly 6,000 student visa holders lost in 2025, about 4,000 of them over criminal conduct such as assault, DUI, and burglary. No serious argument treats a DUI revocation as a Sixth Amendment event. A conditional system that cannot be revoked after the condition fails is not a conditional system. It is a disguised entitlement.”
May I ask what is perhaps an even more fundamental question: Since when do First Amendment rights (or any other Constitutional rights) apply to NON-CITIZENS?
Until recently, the standard for legal immigrants, especially permanent residents, was that except for specific things like jury duty and voting - reserved to citizens - enjoyed the same rights as citizens. Including free speech and due process.
If you want to go to fundamentals, maybe try going to the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and see if you can find the part where it talks about the inalienable rights of American Citizens.
I did some checking, and to a large extent what you have said is true, thanks to some Supreme Court precedent (thus, fallible).
Which is not to say that permissive visa holders equate to legal immigrants (IMO), as they are transient.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it speaks to all children of our Maker enjoying certain inalienable rights held by each human being as a principle. It also anticipates nation states and political bonds.
💯‼️ If a guest in your house started railing against you and the way you and your family and friends lived you’d put up with that for about a nanosecond.
'Railing' against genocide, land theft, murdering 1000's of kids, supporting the right of self-determination and of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation might be against the way *you* live.
But don't claim to speak for the millions of Americans who have a conscience and some sense of morality and think and live otherwise.
The executive could declare the Ladies Home Sewing Circle of Hobart, Tasmania a 'terrorist organization' - but would that make it so in reality?
When the Afghan mujahaddin were doing what we wanted they were 'noble freedom fighters' when they weren't they became 'terrorists'. When it became convenient for the US, fanatic head-chopping actual terrorists got suits, haircuts and White House invites.
A. Muse clearly subscribes to that part of the Declaration of Independence where it talks about the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of 'all native-born citizens of the United States of American but everybody else not so much.'
An F-1 visa carries conditions established by Congress and administered through the executive’s foreign-affairs authority, which means continued presence depends upon compliance with the legal framework governing that invitation. Judge Wise’s ruling allows a temporary visitor’s speech claim to override statutory discretion and a review bar designed to keep sensitive immigration judgments within the political branches. That approach transfers visa policy from accountable officials to a federal judge whose preferred constitutional balance cannot replace the one Congress enacted. The government should appeal, force a clear appellate ruling on the statutory limits, and restore the distinction between protected expression and permission to remain.
There is a simple solution to this issue. Go grab the student and put her on the next flight back home.
See if the judge has an enforcement branch to keep the state department from doing their job.
The statute in question has a very plain text saying there is NO judicial review possible.
Print out a copy for the judge and tell her why she can go pound sand, we'll even loan her a hammer.
Yet another judge ruling on "feelz" and not the law. I wish we had a Congress that would act on the out of control judiciary.
Bravo! Such a well written post, as always. Love this particular paragraph.
“Someone will say that revocation is just punishment for speech under another name. Revocation of a permission is not punishment in the constitutional sense. No one is jailed, fined, or prosecuted. The student loses nothing he owned. He loses a conditional invitation, the same thing roughly 6,000 student visa holders lost in 2025, about 4,000 of them over criminal conduct such as assault, DUI, and burglary. No serious argument treats a DUI revocation as a Sixth Amendment event. A conditional system that cannot be revoked after the condition fails is not a conditional system. It is a disguised entitlement.”
Radical Muslims are celebrating this unconstitutional ruling.
May I ask what is perhaps an even more fundamental question: Since when do First Amendment rights (or any other Constitutional rights) apply to NON-CITIZENS?
Until recently, the standard for legal immigrants, especially permanent residents, was that except for specific things like jury duty and voting - reserved to citizens - enjoyed the same rights as citizens. Including free speech and due process.
If you want to go to fundamentals, maybe try going to the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and see if you can find the part where it talks about the inalienable rights of American Citizens.
I did some checking, and to a large extent what you have said is true, thanks to some Supreme Court precedent (thus, fallible).
Which is not to say that permissive visa holders equate to legal immigrants (IMO), as they are transient.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it speaks to all children of our Maker enjoying certain inalienable rights held by each human being as a principle. It also anticipates nation states and political bonds.
Here you go. Free speech doesn’t mean you can abuse someone for using their Constitutional right to the first amendment. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/canadian-woman-reportedly-ordered-deported-after-alleged-slap-of-teen-wearing-trump-and-ice-clothing/ar-AA2bdG4P
The only thing likely to break these “activist”judges from sucking eggs is a few public hangings. Let me know if any are scheduled.
A lottery for the ability to pull the gallows release?
I'd pay $1000 per ticket.
This is not but another step in the Dems’ coup against America.
https://foreignlocal.substack.com/p/ice-and-the-coup-against-america
💯‼️ If a guest in your house started railing against you and the way you and your family and friends lived you’d put up with that for about a nanosecond.
Out they must go! Forever.
'Railing' against genocide, land theft, murdering 1000's of kids, supporting the right of self-determination and of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation might be against the way *you* live.
But don't claim to speak for the millions of Americans who have a conscience and some sense of morality and think and live otherwise.
And we can only hope said impeachment by Congress would also remove her from the bench now and forever into eternity!
Can this ruling be appealed? I thought image if the government loses at trial, the government couldn’t appeal.
No, the government can't re-file the same charges, because of double jeopardy. They CAN appeal that the judge made a reversible error.
I knew my non-caffeinated brain was missing something, I just couldn’t think of what.
Glad you asked because my non-caffeinated brain couldn’t even do that!
Aliens on student visas do not enjoy the same rights as American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
The illogical, misguided, and likely communist judge will be overturned and should be removed from office.
The deported student can pursue his "rights" in the muslim country he came from.
This a ridiculous holding and needs to be overturned
Great analysis of this ruling and prior decisions on this issue. More proof that many of today’s judges are sleeper cells.
The executive could declare the Ladies Home Sewing Circle of Hobart, Tasmania a 'terrorist organization' - but would that make it so in reality?
When the Afghan mujahaddin were doing what we wanted they were 'noble freedom fighters' when they weren't they became 'terrorists'. When it became convenient for the US, fanatic head-chopping actual terrorists got suits, haircuts and White House invites.
A. Muse clearly subscribes to that part of the Declaration of Independence where it talks about the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of 'all native-born citizens of the United States of American but everybody else not so much.'
That *is* how it reads, no?
Aliens on student visas do not enjoy the same rights as American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
The illogical, misguided, and likely communist judge will be overturned and should be removed from office.
The deported student can pursue his "rights" in the muslim country he came from.
Aliens on student visas do not enjoy the same rights as American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
The illogical, misguided, and likely communist judge will be overturned and should be removed from office.
The deported student can pursue his "rights" in the muslim country he came from.