<\/p>\n
Secretary of State<\/span> Marco Rubio announced last month a policy banning visas for foreigners accused of links to \u201cfar-left terrorism.\u201d The policy cited Donald Trump\u2019s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7<\/a> as well as the law Rubio used to try to deport the pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil<\/a>.<\/p>\n More than three weeks later, however, it\u2019s not clear how Rubio and the State Department intend to use the policy. Their silence since the announcement has left some advocates wondering if the policy is really just a public-relations push by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n Existing law already allows the State Department to block terrorists from visiting the U.S. But tucked inside the policy is language about \u201ceconomic sabotage\u201d that advocates worry could empower a broad crackdown against people associated with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and campaigns to divest from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n \u201cThe message is to the public at large and particularly to anybody who would disagree with the government\u2019s policies that they should tread carefully, lest they be considered a member or aligned with what the government considers to be a far-left terrorist group,\u201d said Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. Rubio announced the policy at a July 16 gathering of foreign diplomats where he played up the threat of what he called \u201cfar-left terrorism,\u201d which he said had been overlooked after the September 11, 2001, attacks.<\/p>\n \u201cFor far too long, however, our counterterrorism doctrine has had a blind spot \u2014 a blind spot when it comes to extremist violence from the political left. Even today, the very idea that far-left terrorism could be a serious threat is treated as a right-wing fever dream, or worse, as a dangerous fascist conspiracy,\u201d Rubio said.<\/p>\n In a press release, Rubio said that State Department officials had been instructed to deny visas to \u201cmembers of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups who have supported or incited acts of terrorism; supported violent criminal activity; participated in economic sabotage; financed, recruited, or provided logistical support for violent or criminal actions committed by Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups; and\/or facilitated the convergence of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned networks for the purposes of violent action.\u201d<\/p>\n The State Department has not elaborated further on how it decides whether a foreign national is a member of a \u201cfar-left\u201d terror group or \u201caligned\u201d groups. The department did not answer questions from The Intercept about its definitions for those terms.<\/p>\n \u201cThe worry is that this will be used who are already in this country, for example, foreign students.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The policy raised major concerns, however, for Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University.<\/p>\n Nothing in the policy appears to restrict it to foreign nationals residing abroad, Margulies said. He is concerned that the State Department could attempt to apply it to students living in the U.S. or to other people with legal status who are applying for different visas or renewals.<\/p>\n \u201cThe worry is that this will be used who are already in this country, for example, foreign students,\u201d he said. \u201cThis gives the administration a hammer to go after these people, that I think is problematic under the First Amendment, and also exceeds the authority that Secretary Rubio has.\u201d<\/p>\n Other parts of federal immigration law already give the government wide discretion to block people accused of links to terrorism, making it something of a puzzle why the government would need a new policy to block people accused more specifically of \u201cfar-left\u201d terrorism.<\/p>\n Yet one provision of the policy appears to mark a shift from existing policy, Margulies said: a section singling out people accused of \u201ceconomic sabotage.\u201d That kind of language could be used to target people who have supported Palestinian calls for the boycott of Israel, or environmental activists<\/a> protesting fossil fuel companies<\/a>, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s a term broad enough to get a tank through, and so that would really be problematic under the First Amendment, because of course people in this country have a right to criticize corporations as well as government,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the vagueness is the point. It\u2019s intended to send a broad chilling effect through the public and discourage dissent.\u201d<\/p>\nRubio\u2019s Right-Wing Fever Dream<\/h2>\n
\n