Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy?

Below are the key sections of law and regulations that may limit a visa holder's speech:

1. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) - 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3):

- Relevant Provision: This section lists grounds for inadmissibility, including engaging in activities that threaten U.S. national security, such as espionage, terrorism, or other unlawful activities. Speech that is deemed to support or advocate for terrorism or terrorist organizations (e.g., material support under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)) can lead to visa revocation or inadmissibility.

- Impact on Visa Holders: If a visa holder's speech is interpreted as supporting terrorist activities or organizations designated by the U.S. government, they could face deportation or visa denial. For example, publicly expressing support for a designated terrorist group, even in a non-violent context, could trigger scrutiny.

2. Visa Conditions and Status Restrictions:

- Specific Visa Program Rules: Certain visas, like the H-1B, F-1 (student), or J-1 (exchange visitor), come with conditions that indirectly limit speech-related activities. For instance, visa holders must comply with the terms of their visa, such as maintaining employment or enrollment status. Engaging in public speech or activities (e.g., protests or political organizing) that interfere with these conditions could jeopardize their status.

- Example: An F-1 student who engages in unauthorized employment (e.g., paid speaking engagements) or participates in activities that lead to arrest (e.g., during a protest) risks violating their visa terms, which could lead to removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) (failure to maintain nonimmigrant status).

3. Espionage and Sedition Laws - 18 U.S.C. § 793–798:

- Relevant Provision: These sections of the U.S. Code criminalize activities like disclosing classified information, espionage, or advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government. While these laws apply to everyone, visa holders face heightened consequences because violations can lead to both criminal penalties and immigration consequences, such as deportation under INA § 237(a)(4) (engaging in activities that endanger public safety or national security).

- Impact on Visa Holders: Speech involving the disclosure of sensitive information or advocating for illegal activities could trigger these provisions, leading to visa revocation or criminal charges.

4. Hate Speech and Incitement - Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and 18 U.S.C. § 2383–2385:

- Legal Standard: The First Amendment allows broad free speech protections, but speech that incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action (per Brandenburg v. Ohio) is not protected. Additionally, federal laws criminalize seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Visa holders engaging in speech that crosses into incitement or sedition could face criminal charges and immigration consequences, including deportation. For example, inflammatory speech at a public event that leads to violence could trigger scrutiny under these laws.

5. Public Charge and Moral Turpitude Grounds - 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) and § 1227(a)(2):

- Relevant Provision: Visa holders convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) can be deemed inadmissible or deportable. Certain speech-related activities, such as fraud, defamation, or perjury, could be classified as CIMTs if they result in a criminal conviction.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Engaging in speech that leads to a CIMT conviction (e.g., making false statements in a public context that result in legal action) could jeopardize visa status.

6. Export Control Laws - International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR):

- Relevant Provision: These regulations, administered by the Departments of State and Commerce, restrict the dissemination of certain technical data or information to foreign nationals, including visa holders. Speech involving the sharing of controlled technical information (e.g., in academic or professional settings) could violate these laws.

- Impact on Visa Holders: Visa holders in technical fields (e.g., H-1B workers in engineering) must ensure their speech or presentations do not disclose ITAR- or EAR-controlled information without authorization, as violations could lead to penalties and immigration consequences.

7. Social Media and Public Statements Scrutiny:

- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Policies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may review visa holders’ social media activity as part of visa adjudications or entry screenings (per DHS policies implemented around 2019–2020). Speech on platforms like X that is deemed to conflict with U.S. laws or visa conditions (e.g., expressing intent to violate visa terms) could lead to visa denial or revocation.

- Example: Posts advocating illegal activities or expressing intent to overstay a visa could trigger adverse immigration actions.

That was a lot to read to still not see a prohibition against "making waves".

I think some people are staunch defenders of free speech, until it comes to speech they don't like. And here we are.

I have no idea what that mass of text is a quote from, since you didn't say. I suspect it's all bullshit. Really it doesn't matter. This stuff is in the courts now, and I expect they will find it unconstitutional, as they should.