Anonymous wrote:How would you feel if student visa holders came here and aligned with the KKK and wrote op-eds supporting racist ideology? But it’s ok to come to the US and promote anti-Jewish protests?

No.

What if she had written anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian op-eds? What if she was complaining about how the university was not adequately taking a position in favor of Israel? I suppose you would support that expulsion too?

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the point people are making. The explanation from Rubio says she was taken because her visa was rejected, so there was that first that triggered it. As for revoking a visa, they can for any reason. If she had said she intends to write political op-eds while being a grad student then she would not have been granted that visa. Then as explained by Rubio, when they found she lied on her visa they decided to revoke it. What's the issue? A visa is not a license to do anything including political speech, it's granted to come here and study that's it.

I do hope your kids do a semester abroad, say something political and end up in a Peruvian dungeon. Then I bet we hear you screeching about due process and rights and all that other leftist bs.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I dont know what you expect. We don't know why she was detained. You cannot expect that the arresting officers will hand out pamphlets detailing the situation. Those details will be provided at her hearing. If they indeed targeted her for absolutely no reason, that will become apparent. But I doubt it. This is probably very much like that Hamas propagandist Columbia student that people claimed was "just criticizing Israel." Id recommend being careful with that line of defense. Promoting Hamas is indeed very different from criticizing Israel. Unless you want us to understand that all criticism of Israel is actually the same as Hamas support. Is that what you WANT people to think? Because if so, by all means, keep defending these guys whose tweets and public statements make very clear they are promoting Hamas.

Oh STFU and stop promoting misinformation!! If you’re going to come on here and spew crap, at least bring solid evidence. And no, solid evidence is not a vague statement from the Trump administration or from the archives of Canary Mission or ADL. You say “promoting Hamas” and yet can’t seem to share one thing or statement of Khalil’s that literally promotes Hamas. Pathetic.

OP, I dont know what you expect. We don't know why she was detained. You cannot expect that the arresting officers will hand out pamphlets detailing the situation. Those details will be provided at her hearing. If they indeed targeted her for absolutely no reason, that will become apparent. But I doubt it. This is probably very much like that Hamas propagandist Columbia student that people claimed was "just criticizing Israel." Id recommend being careful with that line of defense. Promoting Hamas is indeed very different from criticizing Israel. Unless you want us to understand that all criticism of Israel is actually the same as Hamas support. Is that what you WANT people to think? Because if so, by all means, keep defending these guys whose tweets and public statements make very clear they are promoting Hamas.

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the point people are making. The explanation from Rubio says she was taken because her visa was rejected, so there was that first that triggered it. As for revoking a visa, they can for any reason. If she had said she intends to write political op-eds while being a grad student then she would not have been granted that visa. Then as explained by Rubio, when they found she lied on her visa they decided to revoke it. What's the issue? A visa is not a license to do anything including political speech, it's granted to come here and study that's it.

Start here >>> how, specifically, did she land in their crosshairs? The answer to that question unravels your entire lazy premise that this is “just business”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the point people are making. The explanation from Rubio says she was taken because her visa was rejected, so there was that first that triggered it. As for revoking a visa, they can for any reason. If she had said she intends to write political op-eds while being a grad student then she would not have been granted that visa. Then as explained by Rubio, when they found she lied on her visa they decided to revoke it. What's the issue? A visa is not a license to do anything including political speech, it's granted to come here and study that's it.

Students on visa are allowed to have political opinions. They’re even allowed to write about them in their student newspapers! This has never been grounds for revoking a visa.

Face up to the fact that they revoked it for political reasons. She criticized Israel! That’s it 😂

+1 It's the thought police. My work colleague who was born in the former USSR said she never thought she'd see the day when the USA becomes less free than most of Eastern Europe.

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.

HELLO. Here is that paragraph. How does it apply to student from a country that US is not at war with or who has not threatened the US?


§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
(R.S. §4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the point people are making. The explanation from Rubio says she was taken because her visa was rejected, so there was that first that triggered it. As for revoking a visa, they can for any reason. If she had said she intends to write political op-eds while being a grad student then she would not have been granted that visa. Then as explained by Rubio, when they found she lied on her visa they decided to revoke it. What's the issue? A visa is not a license to do anything including political speech, it's granted to come here and study that's it.

Students on visa are allowed to have political opinions. They’re even allowed to write about them in their student newspapers! This has never been grounds for revoking a visa.

Face up to the fact that they revoked it for political reasons. She criticized Israel! That’s it 😂

People are having trouble understanding simple things that just because previous admin was sloppy on everything including letting whoever do whatever they want doesn't mean that's the way it should be. Liberalism went overboard to let non-citizens behave like citizens of this country. That's not how it works anywhere in the world.

I am not understanding the point people are making. The explanation from Rubio says she was taken because her visa was rejected, so there was that first that triggered it. As for revoking a visa, they can for any reason. If she had said she intends to write political op-eds while being a grad student then she would not have been granted that visa. Then as explained by Rubio, when they found she lied on her visa they decided to revoke it. What's the issue? A visa is not a license to do anything including political speech, it's granted to come here and study that's it.

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!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to find a way to coordinate so those at risk for this can sound the alarm (literally) in real time. There were other people on the street.

People on the street can't do very much. These kidnappings are more or less legal. I mean, a court may eventually rules they are not Constitutional, but it's not like average people on the street can just intervene against armed ICE agents walking on the streets?

They pretty much announce what they are being grabbed up and deported for. These aren't boy scouts.

So let me ask you something. How does FBI/DOJ/ICE know where all these guys are in just two months?

Did their rap sheet just fall outta the sky on Jan 20th? Or did the Biden administration know about them and just ignore the problem, regardless of how bad they were?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Universities thrive on open debate

This is rich.
Universities are hotbeds of liberal groupthink. Intelligent debate and intellectual rigor is gone.

Sounds like your side isn’t very good at convincing people in universities. Try harder.

Anonymous wrote: Universities thrive on open debate

This is rich.
Universities are hotbeds of liberal groupthink. Intelligent debate and intellectual rigor is gone.