Thread by @MarkGoldfeder

Dear @JudiciaryDems ,
You are so incredibly wrong, and I can prove it.
A thread, in response to yours.
The only difference? Mine has citations.

Let me explain:

@JudiciaryDems To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…

@JudiciaryDems Most of the nine are not controversial at all- people engaging in terrorism, etc.

The one that has you all indignant is ground number (VII): [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

@JudiciaryDems You say you are concerned that this ground would violate the First Amendment rights of someone like Mahmoud Khalil. Let's examine that contention.

First, let us be clear that you are not arguing that he has not endorsed or supported terror.

I say this because if only you expressed any concern about the people he has been terrifying for over a year, maybe I would have some sympathy for your crocodile tears now. You didn't.

@JudiciaryDems So the question becomes: Are his First Amendment rights the exact same as a citizen's First Amendment rights?
The answer may surprise you: Not exactly, but it does not matter.

@JudiciaryDems At least some First Amendment protections do apply differently to aliens than they do to citizens. Ready for those citations? See, for example. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 3 I0, 419-424 & n.51 (2010):
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-…

"The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems...

the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ ” that are normally accorded to members of our society, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U. S. 393, 396–397, 404 (2007) (quoting Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser , 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986))."

@JudiciaryDems Now, my dear Dems, are there any cases discussing the types of ways in which speech rights might be applied differently to foreigners who do specific things, including advocating for certain group that for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security?

@JudiciaryDems Why yes! Thank you for asking. In fact, there is over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent!
See Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

@JudiciaryDems (This case was about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute Hamas affiliated anti-West agitators who want to...violently overthrow our institutions):

"...Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few; and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government...

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself, unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance, and as lone as human governments endure, they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here."

@JudiciaryDems So our first conclusion is this: The First Amendment might apply with some conditions to foreigners, and based on Supreme Court precedent this is literally one of those conditions.

@JudiciaryDems Now, suppose you don't like those cases, and feel that we should undergo a more traditional First Amendment analysis. No problem- guess who still gets deported?

@JudiciaryDems You see, a restriction like this, which is content-based, would be subject to strict scrutiny review. What does that mean, you ask?

You really should know this one- @SenTedCruz and @HawleyMO and the rest of the @SenJudiciaryGOP do- but fine, I'll tell you.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP It means that for this statute to be constitutional, i.e. for the government to be able to regulate the content of a foreign person's speech in this manner, the law would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP Free speech is incredibly important, no doubt. So when you have a constitutional imperative of that magnitude on one side of the equation, for the balancing test to come out in favor of the law you would need an equally important interest on the other side. Do we have that here?

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP Yes. Per @SecRubio, we do. It is called national security.

washingtonpost.com/education/2025…

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio So even if there were co-extensive First Amendment rights, the deportation would survive a strict scrutiny analysis.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio Of course, all of this assumes that he was only engaged in speech, and not, in fact, in providing actual material support to terrorists. As a reminder, some of the groups he is affiliated with have actually already been accused of doing just that:
jewishlegalnews.com/parizer-v-stud…

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio The fact that the @JudiciaryDems are posting in support of Khalil is not even surprising. Last week, when @ChuckGrassley held a hearing on antisemitism, it was reported that @JudiciaryDems were working with National Students for Justice in Palestine-

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley one of those groups credibly charged with providing material support to terrorists-

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley to gather stories about "the chilling effects” of the Trump administration’s policies." jewishinsider.com/2025/03/anti-i…

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley As a general rule, if you have to ask the Hamas supporters to help you drum up cases, you are probably already in the wrong.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley But given the chance to prepare for a hearing on antisemitism, instead of focusing on helping Jewish people, at least according to reports, you spent the time looking for made-up reasons not to help.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley So in conclusion, please: Stop politicizing everything. Stop looking for counterfactual counter-narratives. Give credit where credit is due.

@JudiciaryDems @SenTedCruz @HawleyMO @SenJudiciaryGOP @SecRubio @ChuckGrassley And most importantly, stop posting legal arguments that are completely devoid of law.

You have a responsibility to the people of this country.

Do better.