Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas.
But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that.
We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
> No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
They don’t see it as a free speech issue. They are not imprisoning the person but “simply” sending them home.
> We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
Not really, they specifically ask about membership in various parties, namely the communist party. This is nothing new at all. Any student coming say in the 80s and starting to show up at pro Communist party protests would have been just as easily kicked out.
A visa like J-1 can be revoked for non-criminal reasons. They don’t see a student visa validity as a free speech issue. It has never been and won’t be until the law is changed.
Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas.
But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that.
We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.