Should we revoke the Visas,,,,

Into the Night said:
SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution.

A Visa is not mentioned in the first amendment.
Click to expand...
However their right to free speech was. You are cripple mentally if you think it was the VISA that was the right that was violated. They get to have opinions different from yours, even if they are here on a VISA. What they cannot do is incite violence or participate in crimes. The revocation of a VISA cannot be because they disagree with the current Administration. Seriously, stop being deliberately obtuse.
 
FastLane said:
You are welcome to your opinion even if you are wrong. :laugh:

BTW My opinion is based on my medical training and classes on identifying dementia in my gerontology course. ;) So my opinion > than your opinion.
Click to expand...
I had an aunt with Alzheimers so I'm familiar with the behaviour, the memory, the gait etc.
 
Damocles said:
Utter nonsense. In 1945 the SCOTUS blocked the revocation of a VISA as it violated their First Amendment Rights... Seriously, just stop. It is not "ANY REASON" it simply is not.
Click to expand...
Seriously I heard Rubio say he can revoke a visa for ANY REASON. It is up to him to decide what is sufficient cause. There is no list of what just cause is, So ANY REASON. Can you show me in the constitution where it says the are certain reasons that the SOS can't revoke a visa for?
 
FastLane said:
Seriously I heard Rubio say he can revoke a visa for ANY REASON. It is up to him to decide what is sufficient cause. There is no list of what just cause is, So ANY REASON. Can you show me in the constitution where it says the are certain reasons that the SOS can't revoke a visa for?
Click to expand...
I can show you the SCOTUS decision that clearly indicated that "good cause" is not rubbish like haircuts.

In 1945, the Supreme Court ruled in Bridges v. Wixon that the Attorney General could not deport Harry Bridges, an Australian-born union leader, for his alleged affiliation with the Communist Party. The court did not rule on a revoked visa, but on the rights of a permanent resident during a deportation proceeding. The decision set important precedents for the due process rights of legal aliens.
The case: Bridges v. Wixon
  • Facts of the case: Harry Bridges, an immigrant and prominent labor organizer, had faced repeated attempts by the U.S. government to deport him because of his suspected links to the Communist Party. The deportation proceedings were based on the 1940 Alien Registration Act (Smith Act), which allowed for the deportation of any alien affiliated with an organization that advocates for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence.
  • The Supreme Court's ruling: In a 5-3 decision, the Court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the government had failed to follow fair procedure. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, concluded that the government had based its case on unreliable hearsay and circumstantial evidence, thereby violating Bridges' due process rights.
  • Definition of "affiliation": The Court ruled that the term "affiliation," as used in the Smith Act, required "concrete proof of meaningful and ongoing association" with a proscribed organization beyond casual cooperation or ideological sympathy. It was not enough to merely share a common viewpoint.
  • Due process for resident aliens: The decision reaffirmed that lawful resident aliens are entitled to constitutional protections, including due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy stated that once a lawful alien resides in the U.S., they are "invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders," including freedom of speech and the press.
 
Under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1201(i)), the Secretary of State (often abbreviated as "SOS" in informal contexts) has explicit discretionary authority to revoke any visa or other immigration documentation "at any time, in his discretion," without prior notice or an opportunity for judicial review in most cases. This applies to both nonimmigrant visas (e.g., tourist, student, or work visas) and immigrant visas, as long as the holder is outside the United States.


Key Details on This Authority​


  • Statutory Basis: The law states: "After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation." No specific reason is required, and revocations are generally not subject to court challenge unless the revocation is the sole basis for removal from the U.S. under certain narrow grounds (e.g., criminal activity).
  • Regulations Confirming Discretion:
    • For nonimmigrant visas (22 CFR § 41.122): "A consular officer, the Secretary, or a Department official to whom the Secretary has delegated this authority is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion."
    • For immigrant visas (22 CFR § 42.82): Similar language applies, allowing revocation "at any time, in his or her discretion," often via provisional revocation while eligibility is reviewed.
  • State Department Guidance: The Foreign Affairs Manual (9 FAM 403.11) notes that while consular officers must base revocations on findings of ineligibility, the Secretary's authority is broader and discretionary, without the same procedural limits. Revocations should not be "arbitrary," but the threshold for what qualifies as a valid exercise of discretion is low—courts uphold it as long as there's a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason," which can be minimal.

Practical Implications and Limitations​


  • When It Applies: This power is typically exercised for reasons like security concerns, criminal activity, failure to maintain visa status, fraud, or even foreign policy interests (e.g., revoking visas of individuals involved in protests deemed adverse to U.S. interests). However, the law doesn't require any articulated reason.
  • Notice and Process: The State Department usually provides notice if practicable (e.g., via email or mail), but it's not mandatory unless travel is imminent. Once entered into the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS), the visa is invalid for U.S. entry.
  • Exceptions and Nuances:
    • Revocations can't occur arbitrarily for consular officers (they need ineligibility grounds), but the Secretary's role overrides this.
    • If the visa holder is already in the U.S., revocation doesn't automatically trigger deportation— that's handled by DHS/ICE based on separate grounds.
    • Recent examples (as of 2025) include revocations tied to national security proclamations or student visa terminations for protest participation, leveraging this discretion.
  • Challenging a Revocation: Options are limited—petitions for reinstatement or new visas require proving eligibility anew, often with waivers for inadmissibility. Judicial review is rare and narrow.

In summary, while revocations often stem from specific issues like inadmissibility (e.g., crimes or security risks), the Secretary's statutory power is indeed "for any reason" within their discretion, making the claim accurate.

---------------------------------------

Well. I'll be dipped in LurchAddams dinner!
 
christiefan915 said:
<sigh> I know she couldn't give a public address at a National Conference, or fundraise for her charities.
Click to expand...
I know my MIL could read a speech. Today. And she's in later stages than Biden. I know the shuffle, the physical therapist that comes to help them walk better... I know this stuff. I'm watching it happen before my eyes and was when Biden was in office too.

That man should never have taken office, and Amendment 25 should have applied almost immediately.
 
Damocles said:
I know my MIL could read a speech. Today. And she's in later stages than Biden. I know the shuffle, the physical therapist that comes to help them walk better... I know this stuff. I'm watching it happen before my eyes and was when Biden was in office too.

That man should never have taken office, and Amendment 25 should have applied almost immediately.
Click to expand...
The reason Biden shuffled was because he had spinal arthritis and neuropathy which affected his walking.
 
Phantasmal said:
The reason Biden shuffled was because he had spinal arthritis and neuropathy which affected his walking.
Click to expand...
The reason he shuffled was from problems linked with progressing dementia, the link between these things is there. You act like Dementia lives in a world by itself, but it is linked to inflammation and pain. There are also various dementia related diseases, and progression is different in different patients. Watching that old man carry cards with directions on them to read, and read crotch notes... My MIL has these things because of her dementia, and had that same physical therapist... (not the same person, but for the same reason).

Seriously, we watched a man go through the most public elder abuse case in history right before our eyes. His dementia was obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top