On the Other Hand …

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recently won a court case holding that legal aliens cannot be deported for their speech. I am conflicted about this.

I have recently been arguing with nativist conservatives who claim that the US is not a propositional nation. In these arguments, I have been leaning on the first chapter of What I Saw in America by G. K. Chesterton. The theory that anybody can become an American was not something made up yesterday; it has deep roots in American history. On the other hand, according to that same chapter, selecting visitors and immigrants by their opinions also has deep roots. (“The melting-pot must not melt.”)

One way to look at this is by comparing the First Amendment to the Second Amendment. I believe people should have the right to cross borders. I also believe people should have the right to carry weapons. Doing both at the same time might be worth banning. I believe people should have the right to express anti-American ideas. Doing so while crossing a border might be worth banning.

On the other hand, there are some very good reasons to not have such speech codes, even for non-citizens.

First, we can no longer trust the people most likely to be charged with enforcing such laws. The Left (a coalition of people with too much free time) is much better at taking over organizations than the Right. In addition, in some cities, recent urban politics has turned into immigrants vs. left-wing crackpots. (That may be because the Left is WEIRDness taken too far and we have to restore older Americsn ideals from overseas backups.)

Second, such speech codes are less necessary nowadays. For much of American history, the US was the Left-wing nation and we got Left-wing (i.e., pro-capitalist) immigrants. In the early 20th century, the definition of Left changed but we still got Left-wing immigrants and had to filter them out. In the mid-20th century, the Hivemind decided that the US was Right-wing. That had the effect of keeping Left-wing immigrants away. That may explain why so many anti-immigration anecdotes are about places other than the US.

My guess is that the courts should allow the possibility of these speech codes but throw as many roadblocks as possible in their way. They should insist on non-vague laws, narrowly-construed laws, etc.