These seem to be deportations of people already in the country which is vastly different.

But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".

Tell me where in the first amendment it says these rights only apply to citizens.

Would you consider yourself a supporter of free speech?

Do you think it should apply only to citizens?

We can default to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bridges vs Wixon: "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded to aliens residing in this country.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107220981080384...

So hypothetically, a future Dem administration can deport right-leaning visa holders?

Note, even if this were true, the entire point of being the free speech party or being a free speech absolutist was that those people supported free speech above and beyond the legal concept of free speech. They explicitly built their free speech crusade against moderation actions on privately owned websites.

"still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter."

So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?

Could you share some examples of when democrats have denied visas?

What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.

> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”

Did JD Vance care about these subtleties in Munich?