Australian with work visa deported

[Anonymous]

Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

[Anonymous]

This is terrible. He had all the right papers.

No foreigner in their right mind would come here now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

[Anonymous]

Wow this is insane. If they’re treating Australians like this, I can’t imagine how the non-western folks are being treated.

[Anonymous]

he probably has brown skin. That’s all he needed to have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

The article doesn't say why because he wasn't given a reason.

Why would we trust that there is good and sufficient cause?

[Anonymous]

These people need to hire lawyers. I would contribute to a gofundme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

They don't "beg credulity" at all. You're a moron living in denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

They don't "beg credulity" at all. You're a moron living in denial.

PP, I don’t disagree with your assessment, but I fear that poster is more than that. I really think someone from the administration — or perhaps from a pro-Trump think tank — has, as part of their job, the duty to monitor DCUM and post here. Do we really think the typical DCUM poster would be citing Mayorkas and the USC off the top like that? This person is U.S. based, is probably an lawyer, and has a specific style which is pretty recognizable.

[Anonymous]

Why would he bring home the "empty ashes urn?"

This does not ring true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would he bring home the "empty ashes urn?"

This does not ring true.

It sounds like the Jasmine Mooney story, so I’m not sure why you think it doesn’t ring true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

The article doesn't say why because he wasn't given a reason.

Why would we trust that there is good and sufficient cause?

Has he asked by challenging the revocation? If he did or said any

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

They don't "beg credulity" at all. You're a moron living in denial.

PP, I don’t disagree with your assessment, but I fear that poster is more than that. I really think someone from the administration — or perhaps from a pro-Trump think tank — has, as part of their job, the duty to monitor DCUM and post here. Do we really think the typical DCUM poster would be citing Mayorkas and the USC off the top like that? This person is U.S. based, is probably an lawyer, and has a specific style which is pretty recognizable.

I am the least likely conspiracy theorist around and I have been thinking exactly this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now they're deporting Australians. Why???

Nothing makes sense.

Also, where does Kristi Noem find all the sadists?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-with-us-working-visa-detained-insulted-deported

The article doesn't say why his visa was canceled, but does contain a fair amount of unsubstantiated quotations that beg credulity (as if they were enhanced by The Guardian article author).

Also, in a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.

They don't "beg credulity" at all. You're a moron living in denial.

PP, I don’t disagree with your assessment, but I fear that poster is more than that. I really think someone from the administration — or perhaps from a pro-Trump think tank — has, as part of their job, the duty to monitor DCUM and post here. Do we really think the typical DCUM poster would be citing Mayorkas and the USC off the top like that? This person is U.S. based, is probably an lawyer, and has a specific style which is pretty recognizable.

I am the least likely conspiracy theorist around and I have been thinking exactly this!

Why would they waste time here arguing on DCUM when they have the White House and Congress?

Seems like some folks don't like having their opinions challenged

[Anonymous]

Here's a letter to the editor in an Australian newspaper by someone who flew Australia --->Hong Kong --->JFK to a cruise in Florida and they were sent back to Australia without any evidence of anything except that they flew through Asia.