Tufts student detained by ICE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that may be wondering, like me, why the Turkish student was taken to a facility far away in Louisiana, here is an answer from a query I posed to Grok. Earlier in the week I read a similar analysis in an online publication but can't find the cite. This summary from Grok does a good job of addressing the main points of what I read. There are two reasons: infrastructure (availability of a long-term holding facility for women) and political (Louisiana is a conservative state with a conservatives court of appeals more favorable to the government's position).

1) The decision to transfer Ozturk to Louisiana, rather than detain her in Massachusetts where she resides, appears to stem from logistical and strategic factors related to ICE's infrastructure and legal considerations. Massachusetts does not have an ICE detention facility specifically equipped to hold women long-term. According to immigration experts, such as Aaron Reichlin-Melnick from the American Immigration Council, women detained by ICE in Massachusetts are typically transferred to facilities in southern states like Louisiana, where the agency maintains several detention centers, including the one in Basile. This facility is one of nine in Louisiana used for immigrants awaiting legal proceedings or deportation.

2) Additionally, the transfer to Louisiana places Ozturk under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its conservative leanings. This could influence the legal proceedings, as immigration cases in this circuit may face judicial precedents less favorable to detainees challenging their detention or deportation. Critics, including Ozturk’s legal team and supporters, argue that this move complicates access to her attorneys and family, who are based in Massachusetts, and may be intended to hinder her ability to mount an effective defense.

They didnt send her far enough away. They should send deportees to Guantanamo or El Salvador.

[Anonymous]

No more wailing about deportation of pro terrorist students when they aren’t given the visas to enter in the first place. And if universities rely heavily on these populations to keep themselves financially afloat instead of educating Americans they can become obsolete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No more wailing about deportation of pro terrorist students when they aren’t given the visas to enter in the first place. And if universities rely heavily on these populations to keep themselves financially afloat instead of educating Americans they can become obsolete.

+1. Eventually these kinds of incidents will go down because terrorist sympathizers and illegals wont be able to get into our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more wailing about deportation of pro terrorist students when they aren’t given the visas to enter in the first place. And if universities rely heavily on these populations to keep themselves financially afloat instead of educating Americans they can become obsolete.

+1. Eventually these kinds of incidents will go down because terrorist sympathizers and illegals wont be able to get into our country.

I am referring to the latest action the a Trump administration to revoke giving any future international student visas to universities who harbored a large pro Hamas international student contingent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll have the hearings they're entitled to before immigration judges and then will be thrown out. I won't miss them, and don't consider their deportation or the future absence of their revolting advocacy to represent any loss to this country whatsoever. If they want to come here and study, fine. if they want to come here to agitate on behalf of non-American interests, don't let the door hit you on the back on your way out.

The whole point is that they’re NOT having those hearings. They’re not getting due process.

HELLO. You don't get a hearing.

Read 50 USC 21. It's ONE paragraph. Then we can talk.

Holy shit! We’ve declared war against Syria, India, and Turkey and nobody is even talking about it?!

Please, dear god, please promise me that this legal beagle is prosecuting the case!

It does not say you must declare war.

See the word "OR".

Can you read?

Go ahead and embarrass yourself further: restate the “or” clause that implicates graduate students from Syria, India, and Turkey. We’ll wait …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tried to post this in colleges but Jeff really wants it here!

Tufts community critical of President Kumar's response:

"The petition calls on Tufts to commit to a variety of steps to protect international students, including paying for immigration lawyers, making free housing available on campus for vulnerable community members to increase the protection the school can provide them, and publicly affirming that the school will protect the right to free speech on campus.

“The only approach – practical and ethical – is a full-throated commitment to resisting the US administration’s oppressive policies and to the maintenance of the rights and dignity of all persons,” the petition states. ”Tufts has an opportunity to take a principled and historic stance against this authoritarian crackdown on student free speech in general, speech regarding Palestine in particular, and on the rights of non-citizens in the United States as a whole.”

The petition asserts that Tufts’ longstanding connections to the international community will be risk if the administration does not defend Ozturk and the right to free speech.

“International students, scholars, and staff are and have been critical contributors to Tufts’ educational and research excellence,” the petition reads. “A failure to protect their rights, freedom and dignity in today’s political climate will be a betrayal to that legacy and do irreparable harm to the University’s international standing.”

Signers also signaled they would end financial support for Tufts and “cease recommending that prospective students attend” the university."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/27/metro/tufts-ozturk-trump-immigration-crackdown-pro-palestine/

Thank you for this. I worked with international students in the Boston area and this incident hit me hard. Given how much money and talent international students bring to Massachusetts, all the area universities should step up and protect their international community. But I think they're all cowed because of the fear of losing federal funding. Another factor which we have to be honest about is the large number of Jewish students in some MA colleges. Tuft's student population is 20 percent Jewish; it's 35 percent at Brandeis and 23 percent at BU. Schools with large Jewish populations are not going to stick their necks out for students who are against the Israeli government (notice I said "government" and not "Jewish or Israeli people") or pro-Palestinian.

You just unironically said Jewish students are the problem.

[Anonymous]

My guess would be that she was working with Hamas. Hamas is coordinating with many student groups around the country. One group at Columbia was silent for months on social media then posted three minutes before the attack in Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess would be that she was working with Hamas. Hamas is coordinating with many student groups around the country. One group at Columbia was silent for months on social media then posted three minutes before the attack in Israel.

And she also attended Columbia.

[Anonymous]

This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

It also seems to violate Section I of the Constitution that prohibits ex-post facto laws, specifically the "changes in punishment" case law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess would be that she was working with Hamas. Hamas is coordinating with many student groups around the country. One group at Columbia was silent for months on social media then posted three minutes before the attack in Israel.

And she also attended Columbia.

Gasp
You should go work for the fine minds at Homeland Security

You are wasted on DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

It also seems to violate Section I of the Constitution that prohibits ex-post facto laws, specifically the "changes in punishment" case law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html

She's not a US citizen so she doesn't get constitutional rights.

Enjoy the trip back to Turkey. Unfortunately, the weather doesn't look good there this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

It also seems to violate Section I of the Constitution that prohibits ex-post facto laws, specifically the "changes in punishment" case law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html

She's not a US citizen so she doesn't get constitutional rights.

Enjoy the trip back to Turkey. Unfortunately, the weather doesn't look good there this week.

Basic rights ate offered to all in this country

We aren't Russia yet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

It also seems to violate Section I of the Constitution that prohibits ex-post facto laws, specifically the "changes in punishment" case law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html

She's not a US citizen so she doesn't get constitutional rights.

Enjoy the trip back to Turkey. Unfortunately, the weather doesn't look good there this week.

You got special training in stupid didn't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This young woman wrote the piece in MArch of 2024 - a year ago. It was perfectly fine then. Now, with a new administration, with no notice and with no guidance, the rules have change. What the administration has done is effectively declared the Act they are using unconstitutional. It is void for vagueness. There is no possible way to know if the conduct you engage in today will be declared criminal or a deportable offense tomorrow.

Sorry MAGA. You chased your tail and caught it

It also seems to violate Section I of the Constitution that prohibits ex-post facto laws, specifically the "changes in punishment" case law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/70-ex-post-facto-laws.html

She's not a US citizen so she doesn't get constitutional rights.

Enjoy the trip back to Turkey. Unfortunately, the weather doesn't look good there this week.

Why is she locked up in Louisiana when they could easily just put her on a plane and send her back to Turkey (a NATO ally)?

This has nothing to do with our national security and everything to do with meeting quotas and performative BS.