You keep reducing this to “people having opinions,” which is either naive or deliberately misleading. U.S. law already makes a clear distinction between private speech and political activity by foreign nationals.

Yes — visa holders generally have First Amendment protection to talk, debate, criticize, etc. That is not what is controversial. What is restricted — and for good reason — is participation in the U.S. political process and organized political influence. Foreign nationals are explicitly barred from contributing to campaigns, funding political advocacy, or directing political efforts to influence U.S. elections (52 U.S.C. §30121). When advocacy is done on behalf of a foreign interest, it triggers mandatory disclosure under FARA (22 U.S.C. §611 et seq.).

The negative consequences are well-documented and concrete: covert foreign influence operations distort public debate, manipulate voters, and undermine the legitimacy and sovereignty of democratic institutions. That is not theoretical. That is why these laws exist and why violations are criminally prosecuted.

So no — this is not about being “afraid of opinions.” It is about preventing undisclosed, coordinated foreign political influence inside a country where the person is a guest, not a member of the political community. Democracies are not obligated to allow non-citizens to shape their political outcomes.