This is a brilliant article because it is summarising how bad it is. They don't want you to know how bad! Lots of paper cuts and hopefully no one sees the amputation.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
It has started. The Posobiec book (foreword by Steve Bannon) makes the case that anyone to the left of Mussolini is a "secret communist revolutionary" and rationalizes doing anything to "crush" us.
This is a popular book. I found my own mother reading it. I took the title at face value at first and found the skull disturbing but not threatening what with not being a communist or anything close to it. But then I started reading and I realized that it's not a matter of if they pull the trigger but when, and when they pull the trigger that they would be completely comfortable calling my mild liberal beliefs communist, and that my mother would probably believe them as they stripped me of citizenship and sent me to a labor camp in El Salvador.
Yes. I'm well-aware of the analogy of the slowly boiled frog, etc. But it's also the slippery-slope fallacy, so... Why are we assuming facts here before we know of them?
She is a Turkish national on a student visa. Those folks do NOT (like it or not) have the same rights as citizens. You cannot, for example, support (not saying she's done this, just saying this is the law) an organization designated as an FTO, as a "green card" holder; you CAN (sigh) as a citizen. /shrug
sees downvotes ... Um, excuse me? Am I not allowed to have a valid dissenting opinion here, now? Why the downvotes, folks? Give me a valid reason please
Because it's not a slow boil, not anymore. The executive is flaunting TROs, conducting deportations without due process, openly flirting with the idea of stripping citizenship and talking about a third term.
Anyone who should have payed attention to Project 2025 but "remained calm" instead should now pay attention to the McCarthy II plan from the same source. They are telling us who they are and we should listen to them.
Visa holders have all of what most would consider "foundational rights" as any citizen. They have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc.
The government revoking a visa based on categories of behavior which are protected by those foundational rights is appalling.
I have looked into the legal basis of this. As a visa holder, you are enjoying a privilege, not a right. And to keep holding that privilege, you cannot openly support enemies of the state. Whether this is actually enforced or not is immaterial- that's the law as it currently stands.
As a citizen, you can verbally support enemies of the state, but you cannot financially support them.
INA § 237(a)(4)(A): If a visa holder engages in activities that endanger public safety or national security, including endorsing terrorist organizations or inciting violence, they can be deported.
Material Support Clause (INA § 212(a)(3)(B)):
Even verbal or symbolic support of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) can count as “material support,” which is grounds for both inadmissibility and deportation.
Overstay or Status Violation: If someone is already skating close to the edge (e.g., questionable employment, status lapse), political speech supporting enemies of the state can provide the cherry on top for ICE to act.
Discretionary Revocation: The U.S. can revoke a visa for virtually any reason, especially if the person’s presence is deemed “contrary to U.S. interests.” That doesn't require proof of a crime—just bureaucratic will.
It's always been like this... But now it's controversial, apparently.
The student in question participated in a protest in support of Palestinians, not Hamas. There is no evidence presented they provided material support to Hamas, and there is no evidence they provided verbal support of Hamas.
So yes, it's controversial that a student, participating in a student protest, protesting a war, was deported without due process.
And this is before we mention the government has admitted, in court document, that they illegally deported a visa holder to El Salvador, and "oops" since he's already in a prison overseas there's nothing our court system can do about it.
So yes, controversies abound with the way this administration is "enforcing" immigration law.
> Why are we assuming facts here before we know of them
Because we should’ve been given the facts already. That’s the law. The fact that we haven’t been given the facts indicates that the people responsible are not reliable and deserve all scrutiny.
If there were notable cause for their actions they should shout them from the roof tops and please define support? She even as a green card holder can lawfully support verbally or in writing anyone she chooses.
All the ways such support would be unlawful would be unlawful for citizens as well. That said we know that the support she has given is writing against the gazan genocide. If they had better cause they would have already spoken them.
The US is not at war, isn't being invaded by an aggressive neighboring country, and doesn't have an active draft. That is the key difference that you're obtusely refusing to acknowledge here.
You can disagree with Trump as much as you want. There is an executive order signed by the President. None of those Reuters and the like explanations matter. Given the executive order is in place, it doesn’t matter who signed it. Since it’s coming from the White House, it’s perfectly valid to reference it.
Ukraine is not at war with Russia. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Yet, Ukraine drafts its men like rats.
But wait - I can’t reference information shared by the White House because it’s all BS? Look, I’m not saying an executive order is a law, but it’s also not a sticky note. And let’s be honest, a ton of illegals have been coming to the U.S. Trump’s executive order didn’t come out of thin air.
I'm sorry it seems you're just not aware of how laws work.
Ukraine has different laws than the US. Under Ukrainian law, drafts are legal in their current situation. Under American law, deporting people without due process is not legal in our current situation. In fact, even if the US were at war where an invocation of the Alien Enemies Act made sense, even then people are owed individualized due process before deportation to ascertain whether they are in fact an Alien Enemy.
Of course you can reference information shared by the White House, but there's a difference between referencing it and asserting that it has legal authority that it doesn't have under our legal system.
In our legal system, the White House's memos cannot overrule people's Constitutional protections, even if they're attempting to solve an actual problem. The "out of thin air"edness of the EO is irrelevant to its legal authority.
I never said Ukraine is doing anything illegal (although the legality of literally dragging people into a military car might be something to question). See my very first comment. Watch the video on Slate, then watch the videos I shared. Looks like many people on HN are getting triggered when you mention the inhumane treatment of Ukrainian men by Ukraine.
Your initial comment was meant to draw some type of equivalence between a person being arrested in America for writing an op-ed and for people being drafted for war in Ukraine.
Now you're 5 comments deep tying yourself in odd knots like "the US is being invaded by a foreign government" and "Ukraine is not at war" and "executive orders can overrule Constitutional due process rights."
You created your own confusion, my friend. An asinine starting position like your initial equivalence will do that to ya.
You're misrepresenting my original point. My initial comment was to highlight the act of capturing someone off the street, not to equate that with arrests over op-eds or argue legal parity between Ukraine and the US.
I never said "the US is being invaded by a foreign government". I referenced information publicly shared by the White House. That’s a valid source, regardless of who signed the executive order. We don’t get to dismiss official government communication just because we dislike the administration.
Also, I was replying directly to _your_ points, not shifting the topic. You brought up the US legal system, war declarations, and due process. I simply responded to each.
Legally speaking, Ukraine has not declared war on Russia, so saying "Ukraine is not at war" is technically correct.
And finally, I never claimed executive orders can override constitutional rights - that’s a straw man. Let’s focus on what was actually said rather than rewriting it to make it easier to attack.
Well, if the night clubs are working, then what kind of a war is that? Obviously the video is just one of many others, eg it’s not limited to night clubs.
But keep comparing being arrested by official police for draft dodging in the middle of a war for existence to sending secret hooded officers to arrest a brown-skinned scarf-wearing woman for supposedly antisemitism while your pal Boer Elon is doing Nazi salutes in public.
Seriously? The video is all that matters, not the article...
>we don't know wha tthat woman did.
All she did was write a piece against israel, and either way, her due process was violated, which is the problem here. She was not charged with any crimes... How are you seriously hung up on the video source when there's a video of masked, plain clothes federal agents "arresting" a random PhD student with no warrant, and no crimes committed?
Frightening barometer reading for this community that this is what you focus on...
> How do you know she wasn't being arrested for one here?
Perhaps we could have some sort of public trial where some of her peers -- let's say a dozen -- could hear the facts and decide on whether she's committed a crime.
(Read the 5 paragraphs that begin with "He allegedly did not disclose".)
Everyone was up in arms about this guy a few days ago based on "how things looked"; turns out he was willfully hiding multiple affiliations that would have raised red flags against his visa. Which, of course, now raised a giant red flag against it. There is no government on the planet that would have been OK with misrepresenting yourself as a visa applicant (this is also known as "lying"). But because the US did, and because the news is so hyper-polarized, tHe gEsTaPo iS cOmInG yOu gUyS!1!!!!1! /eye-roll
Now you might disagree with me on whether these affiliations had merit with regards to invalidating a visa, but lying or withholding information to give your visa a better chance to pass is something that you must surely understand might be a problem.
There is so far no reason to assume that the woman arrested didn't make similar mistakes. That's all I'm saying.
I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point, or don't know what due process is, but whether or not he had questionable affiliations isn't even the central concern. The suspension of due process is. Any person on our soil is entitled to due process BEFORE getting black bagged and disappeared/deported. Heard of innocent til proven guilty?
from your own source
>However, the government will have to prove to the immigration judge that Khalil willfully failed to disclose that information, and whether that disclosure would have impacted his eligibility for permanent residency.
There is a reason we have a court system, and to sort out these issues BEFORE we take violent action against people here legally is entirely the point.
The fascists are using a law from hundreds of years ago that's only been invoked thrice, all while at war, and the last time to wrongfully put the japanese in internment camps, to circumvent due process - that is the forrest you seem to be willingly missing for the trees.
This is just terrible, ridiculous hyperbole. Disagree with his methods if you wish (and I do, myself), but an orange Pinochet, Trump is absolutely not. Your framing is incredibly one-sided... "the fascists" (you're gonna have to define that word every time you use it since it's literally the most useless word in any rational discussion), "hundreds of years ago" (um, nope? See below), "last used to put japanese in internment camps" (Nope, that's simply your media's false representation of the facts, again- see below)
The legal standard for material misrepresentation is "Would a reasonable immigration officer have acted differently if the information had been disclosed?"
Given that the 3+ organizations he failed to disclose, almost definitely WOULD have caused an officer to act differently were they disclosed as was appropriate, the misrepresentation is thus material. (Arguably. Perhaps not definitively.)
So the bar of proving willful failure is lower on this one, and the courts usually then infer from circumstantial evidence: 1) Was the form crystal clear in what needed to be disclosed? (Presumably, it is.) 2) Were the omissions selective and beneficial to the applicant? (Looks like it.) 3) Was there a repeated pattern across multiple institutions and roles, all tied to politically sensitive affiliations? (The DOJ alleges this.)
In short, the DOJ has a valid case, and your claim of "suspension of due process" is simply false. If due process were suspended, you’d expect to see: 1) No hearing, 2) Secret evidence, 3) No legal representation, 4) Expedited removal without judicial review. None of that is happening. He’s going before an immigration judge, has access to counsel, and can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts if necessary. That's literally what is making the news.
Here are the relevant statutes:
INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)]
"Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible."
INA § 237(a)(1)(A) – [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A)]
"Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable."
Relevant case law:
Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1960; A.G. 1961) - Clarified that even omissions can be material if they had the potential to affect the outcome of the immigration process.
Hassan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2010) - The court upheld removal where the applicant failed to disclose his membership in a student organization that had links to a banned group, despite his argument that the omission was minor or irrelevant.
Ajdin v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 437 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2006) - The Second Circuit held that willful omission of material facts—even without direct intent to deceive—is enough if the applicant understood the question and failed to respond accurately.
Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) - Found that even omissions not obviously harmful to national security can be deemed material if they relate to affiliations or associations that could affect admissibility.
Other considerations:
UNRWA is not a designated terrorist organization, but allegations that parts of its workforce have been sympathetic to Hamas or antisemitism (especially after October 7) may be enough for DHS to claim that disclosing such a link would’ve raised red flags in background checks.
CUAD? That one’s iffier—political expression is generally protected, but immigration law isn’t shy about excluding individuals affiliated with subversive groups or with a “propensity” for inciting unrest. If the gov can tie CUAD directly to Hamas sympathies or disruptions, it gets dicey.
I wonder why you didn't quote the text here lol. Did you think we wouldn't click through and read it ourselves?
Listen man, whatever causes you to so willingly believe everything that known grifters and con artists are selling you is the same issue that has you convinced that everyone in your life is part of a vast and deep conspiracy to make you look stupid. You view everyone as being incapable of comprehending, in awe of your problem solving skills and media literacy, and well, you're right for very wrong reasons.
> whatever causes you to so willingly believe everything that known grifters and con artists are selling you
I literally question everything and base my opinion on facts. I think for example that regardless of basis, the optics on this one are bad. What do you do? Refer to whatever Daily Kos and Occupy Democrats says is the truest depiction of facts? LOL
> You view everyone as being incapable of comprehending
You literally are saying this in a conversation where I've tried to use evidence-based reasoning, citing what I can, and you literally lead with ad hominem, ridiculous hyperbole and slander. That's fucking rich. You must constantly confuse "looks like the authorities might be right on this one" with "bootlicking". Which is just intellectually lazy. Sorry I pissed facts into your "fascist" Cheerios.
1) the "West" is constantly at war with Islamists and their discontents in fights almost exclusively begun by them (I believe they are religion-motivated, based on my research, but that's another debate)
2) we have students on visas in the US who are supporting a widely acknowledged foreign terrorist organization, which goes against the letter of the law (which applies more to green-card holders than citizens)
3) people are assuming the worst about things they literally do not know about here
4) I am simply calling this out and getting downvoted as a result
Because the agency that arrested her told us why she was arrested, and it was "supporting terrorism" ie writing an oped opposing israel's genocide, when they certainly have no hesitation to mention the crimes when they are there??
Oh and the agency already has a well documented history of arresting innocent people? Look up "ice collateral arrests" "autism awareness deportation" or "soccer coach deported for real madrid inspired tattoo" or "tourist arrested" or "tourist held at border" to get a litany of examples. I'm sorry I pay closer attention to the erasure of our civil liberties than you do.
Of course I'm not judging the situation based solely on the video. I actually read about the case, but when I searched for the video that was just the first link.
I (clearly falsely) expected six plainclothes feds tossing a PhD student in to the back of an unmarked van would resonate more with the crowd here... I figured if you cared you'd look more in to it, rather than rush to defend the regime... Silly me, I guess.
Don’t bother trying to convince him. He’s relishing in the brutality against people he hates. He might try to intellectualize it (in the spirit of HN), but it’s coming from a place of pure emotion. Namely, anger, bitterness, resentment, insecurity, fear, and hatred.
Absolutely ridiculous slander. I challenge you to find good evidence against any assertion I make, because I only state things after I have researched them (and not only that, I ask an LLM to counterargue me). I don't hate anyone, I despise ideologies (one of which you are possibly unwittingly representing, without even realizing it, perhaps), groupthink, and baseless assertions or beliefs.
And most certainly, baseless accusations like this. There's no such thing as "rationalized emotion" (which you seem to be insinuating with your "He might try to intellectualize it" remark); criticism is either baseless/purely-belief-based/non-factual, or it is at least based on good-faith facts and reason.
That emotion you detect? That has to do with the amount of misinformation and truth-twisting going on out there... And it's growing.
Everyone was up in arms about this guy a few days ago; turns out he was intentionally hiding multiple red-flag affiliations; how would any government, much less the US, tolerate that?
>However, the government will have to prove to the immigration judge that Khalil willfully failed to disclose that information, and whether that disclosure would have impacted his eligibility for permanent residency.
>Baher Azmy, an attorney for Khalil, told NBC News: "These late-breaking, after-the-fact allegations, silly as they are, primarily show that the government must know the supposed 'foreign policy' grounds for Mahmoud’s removal are absurd and unconstitutional."
>Azmy said the government's new claims "cannot change the obvious fact the government has admitted — he is being punished in the most autocratic way for his constitutionally protected speech."
>the government has admitted — he is being punished in the most autocratic way for his constitutionally protected speech.
Gee, almost like we should have a legal system that sorts this stuff out before we take violent action against people here legally.
Agreed, but I still see value in wasting my working hours making sure people here at least see the reality.
All I have to offer this forum while I'm a student is politics, which I do know better than at least some here. There is no technology I can really offer a valuable opinion on, more than the experts here.
It's my armchair activism to at least make sure that the left's point of view is not wholly absent on this forum of affluent, insulated tech bros. Plus, my job has a lot of down time, so there are worse ways I could spend it.
It would be better if your goal was not to make "the left's point of view" more well-known (which is just pushing an ideology), but to call out unsubstantiated rightwing BS using evidence and reason.
Left wing positions, while they control no branches of the government and have no power is literally to raise alarms about what the fascists are doing, and how silly their propagandized reasoning is. That is exactly what I'm doing.
pushing ideology of anti fascists == calling out right wing bs using evidence (climate change, vaccine science, hell, any scientific research at this point all tick both of your boxes)
My last comment had about six sources, but I could find dozens more if you still find yourself blind and tasting fascist boot.
you don't even realize yet that you can't use "fascist" in a good faith argument without defining it precisely, because it's simply used as a cudgel word by both sides... and literally has been for almost 100 years
Is straight from the horse's mouth enough for you? I could go on and on and on if you wanna keep getting owned by receipts.
>I'm sorry you see...next time
You're the one who can't even find sources I found in 30 sec, but I'm the one who needs a critical thinking cap? You're a joke and you would've supported the nazis because "cmon, it's just a few cherry picked millions who got caught up in that!" Perhaps your desire to lick the boot outweighs your critical thinking skills. If you knew anything about how fascist regimes work you'd know this is simply stage one, not some anomalous happenstance.
Uhhh because 1) she hasn't been charged and 2) Marco Rubio has, on multiple occasions, said that it's because "no country in the world would keep a social activist that comes in and tears up our university campuses."
Another case is Badar Khan Suni who is here on a valid student visa, and DHS said they targeted for “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media.”
> Bahar Khan Suri (spelling corrected; assuming this is him)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/us/bahar-khan-suri-deportatio...
"While the filing does not mention Saleh’s father by name, The New York Times reported that Ahmed Yousef – a former adviser to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh – confirmed in a voice message that he was Suri’s father-in-law."
It's certainly sus, but I'd agree that if he was actually trying to work for peace, as he claims, and that this was demonstrable, this was pretty unjust at first glance
Yes, and AI is demonstrably less biased than Slate is. Your point? Are you arguing for bias?
The article was worded extremely slantingly. It was at least clear to me. In emotional contexts, it's best to stick to the least biased stories you can find.
It would be less concerning if it was not clear to you. Sharing that it was clear to you is evidence of the very deficiency in judgement that everyone is highlighting.
You are woefully ill-equipped to be making such assessments, yet you continue to do it with confidence despite everyone telling you why you're wrong.
Similarly, expanding executive powers benefits whoever has the position, not just the guy who is in there right now.
The self-defeating behavior of the legislative branch, across both parties, for decades led to the risks going up invisibly. And it turns out, risks usually go up without people noticing.
Pretty much, yeah. I hold both major political parties and their partisans responsible for the current dumpster fire in Washington, and all of the dumb shit that's preceded it over the last 40-odd years.
They (the two major political parties in the US) are consistently and provably full of shit and you're mad at me for pointing it out? Not sure what that means. Likewise I reject any claims of virtue signaling when what I'm actually doing is expressing life-long disappointment and frustration at a very nearly complete lack of political representation.
I mean, I'm mostly criticizing your post, since I'm not allowed to downvote it, I have to use my words.
But it's the definition of virtue signaling. There is absolutely a group of people who think it is virtuous to be "above the fray" and "smarter than everyone else" and it's represented by loudly denouncing "both sides" and implicitly positioning yourself as better than them.
I mean, ultimately I would have preferred you just not post that so I didn't have to read it, but then I went and replied to you and replied to your reply so now I'm hypocritically adding more garbage to the thread.
All that being said, since I'm writing something at all, I am genuinely frustrated at people who say things like "lack of political representation". America has an absolute ton of representation at every level and if you want to be heard, you absolutely can be.
But beyond that, this is a representative democracy which means you need to compromise with other people in order to move forward. Those compromises are called political parties. You're never going to have a massive country wide political party that represents the exact details of your needs and wants, but what you can do is influence the existing ones to move closer to your goals.
So, you know, the next time you're given a choice of people to vote for, think about which one is going to move you closer to your goals and which one is going to move you further away.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.