Racket News has my subscription for this reason. I first came across MT two years ago when he was facing slanderous leading questions by a House Committee. I didn't like his writing at first as I got too used to enjoying partisan flames.
It is great to have you join, Simon. If you get curious about what he's done all these years, the Rolling Stone coverage of the financial madness is great. And all the books are top-notch. If you're a presidential campaign nut, Spanking the Donkey and Smells Like Dead Elephants are too good to miss.
of course you know this will stir flames anyways because discussion of the truth and what’s going on is exactly what the whole point of the flames are.
not that I don’t agree with you that is not Matt’s intent.
Yes, exactly. It is really frustrating to read lefty rags' claims using language like "solely" - but almost always refuse to ground such a claim from a quote from the person cited, on the record, in full context. And when later it turns out that the claim was never true, even at the time it was reported, we never see a correction printed.
None of this makes what the administration is doing wrong either. I have also been casting a wide net for legal and historical context and analysis.
One thing that should be really clear to anyone who believes in a sovereign state is that, as a guiding principle, guests to our country are not citizens - they are guests! Guests are here by invitation and can be asked to leave.
So this is where things get complicated… check out the first attachment here. Even the previous Trump administration believed people already in the country enjoy Constitutional protections. So the how and the why become important.
I was a foreigner abroad for many years and never expected I was entitled to rights (in part because I lived in a country where people had none), but to me this is more about what kind of country we want to be. But it’s not clear what exactly is happening
I don't mean to be a buzz-kill but I suspect in the end SCOTUS may find a lot of this moot, as Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the discretionary authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a visa or other immigration documentation after its issuance. It also explicitly states that there shall be no means of judicial review or habeas corpus petition from the discretionary decision to revoke a visa under section 221(i) or any other habeas corpus provision.
At the end of the day a lot of attorneys will generate a lot of "work products" and make a lot of money during the evolution and promotion of this case. You can of course argue the application of 221(i) until the cows come home but I do believe the legal foundation for revocation and deportation, in the matters of Ozturk and Mahmoud anyway, is already cast and laid.
Visas and other temporary immigration documents or permits are issued with conditions that are reviewable by the issuer (or associated parties) and can be revoked if the issuer (or associated party) finds that the receiver violated good-faith conditions in the permits.
Moral of story: when in Rome, don't piss off the Romans.
You put it much more elegantly than I would have: Residents can afford to be arrogant, belligerent, sloppy, and mean - guests, not so much. Just a little humor of course........right?
Seems like a common sense approach. I'm a legal permanent resident of the Philippines and it was made very clear to me that any of the activities Ozturk and Mahmoud participated in were grounds for revocation, deportation and blacklisting. I avoid any protests/rallies, try not to be an ugly American and just enjoy my life.
So when a graduate student writes an op-ed, what "good faith conditions" has she violated? And does this justify seizing her on the street, a year later, and shipping her a thousand miles away to prison in Louisiana? What kind of fucked up country do you want to live in?
Love it!!! “When in Rome, don’t piss off the Romans.” It ain’t easy to be succinct, profound, and humorous all at the same time, but you just nailed it.
Correct. It seems to me that the confusion many are making, including Matt, is that once the deportation of student visa holders or green card holders becomes “common place” - it is only a short leap to deporting citizens for some violation in the law that the Trump Administration dreams up. To which I flatly reject. Citizens have more rights than non-citizens and we should act accordingly. These “deportations” are to a very small number of people in the country who have violated the terms of their visa. So I say bye, bye. It’s about time the government did something about this organized scourge that has swept over university campuses. When state and local law enforcement have done nothing, I am glad the Feds have finally jumped into the breach. For the actual number of people involved here, it seems to me as overkill. Lots of big money and news print wasted on nothing.
1.) I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying "it is only a short leap to deporting citizens for some violation in the law that the Trump Administration dreams up." Given the scope of the problem -- some 10 million illegal entries into the US in the last 4 years? -- there is a genuine risk of people getting pulled into a dragnet. But the sheer number of legitimate "candidates" for removal makes me think that there won't be much effort or interest in targeting (legal) citizens.
2.) Given the aforementioned size of the problem and the arguable problem of activist judges -- and I'm not comfortable with the term or concept but it does appear that there are partisan actors in our judicial system (e.g., the lawfare of the last four years) -- there is a further problem in the amount of time needed to address every instance of "judicial review" (e.g., Google tells me there are 677 district court judges who are nominated by presidents). We've already seen several such cases. I was wondering about precedent and it seems that judges have been particularly keen on blocking actions by Trump:
Sorry, call me conspiratorial but this does not seem to be a coincidence.
No objection to "dreamers"? Biden's open-door policy? (On the latter I am not sure of what official proclamations Biden made but in practice it certainly was an open-door policy).
My point being that the "devil's in the details" and these early cases may be indications of future success or failure in the administration's efforts to clean up the immigration mess worsened over the last four years.
I remain stunned that no-one ever seems to note that it's not as though we were running a "poor people shortage" prior to the illegal immigration wave. Who do you think will suffer? People already in need of limited resources. Not the denizens of Martha's Vineyard.
But, since I said I did agree, you're spot on with the silliness...that's what it is: "toxic silliness"...that has gripped campuses for decades.
College students go to college to learn...not to lecture!
(Speaking as a converted college radical who got to watch the "protest industry" while in grad school at the University of Minnesota).
But I do think the "forces of opposition" are trying every option they can to throw a wrench in Trump's efforts. They need to be countered.
You have yet to prove that "these people" have violated the terms of not just a visa, but of a permanent resident Green Card. What laws have they been charged with breaking? What hearing have they received where they have the ability to contest the charges? The answer, in all of the prominent cases, is NONE. It's clear the intent of the Trump crew is to render illegal any criticism of the actions of a certain foreign state, with implications going far beyond restrictions on the speech rights of non-citizens.
As Obama made clear, CITIZENS can be detained indefinitely (suspension of habeas corpus) if designated as "domestic terrorists". (Chris Hedges tried to get SCOTUS to over-rule but had "no standing"). Hundreds of non-violent January 6th protesters served a median of 60 days in jail for MISDEMEANORS. Many of these people have their lives ruined. Soon you will be a "Domestic terrorist" for criticizing Zionism and US MidEast policies (now along with Ukraine the basis of our war profiteering economy).
People routinely overstay their VISAs in the US. These deportations are specific to students who dare criticize what Israel is doing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you aren’t a citizen and don’t have a visa, you aren’t allowed to be here. That’s how it worked when I was an expat earlier in my career.
Greg, are you a lawyer? Why in the world would you revoke someone’s visa & not then deport them (if they were in the country) unless you were part of the Biden administration?
It’s like starting your car, putting it in gear, and not driving off.
Driving off is different than starting your car and putting it in gear, I will grant you…
As I read how 221(i) has been applied historically, it seems to apply to visa holders outside the U.S., or returning to the U.S. and denied entry. (The Dr. Alawieh case from Brown University would be a classic example.) Am I wrong? Because if it has historically been applied at Secy of State (and, it says, consular officials) for people outside the U.S. or returning from outside the U.S., perhaps it doesn't apply for people already in the U.S.(Khalil from Columbia; Suri from Georgetown Prince Alwaleed Center). I am asking, not asserting.
Interesting. I learned some important points about the extent of protections a non citizen has. Thanks. Based on your analysis is the matter, why the hell is all of this “ protect ma rights” going on? Other than some lawyers making Monet….
I would guess it’s because as many issues we’ve confronted in this country, interested parties like to start the conversation from a premise that is far from the original set of facts.
How bout we try to be a SANE country that prioritizes the safety and civil rights of our own citizens over foreigners who come here regurgitating Hamas propaganda and trying to whip up a pogrom?
Also, these same foreigners have to sign a form swearing that they will not offer support to a designated terror org, which Hamas clearly is, or else their visas could be revoked and they could be deported.
It's clear that the Secy of State has wide latitude to deport any foreigners that threaten American interests, and it's certainly in our interests to not add any more bodies to the roving packs of Jew haters who refer to themselves as "pro-Palestinian" and yet who never say or do a thing to help actual Palis but instead chant "From the River to the Sea" (meaning the Jewish state must be destroyed) and "Globalize the Intifada" (which obviously means attack any Jew you find.)
This is not a Free Speech or First Amendment issue, no matter how many times people try to make it so, it is about the terms of visas for foreigners and how they can be revoked. Supporting an org that murders and kidnaps American citizens is certainly something we might ask our visitors to abstain from, is that too much?
No one's being sent to the gulag or the firing squad, they just have to go home to mama and papa. And we can't even do this to protect American Jews?
What liberals are essentially saying now is: we prioritize proceduralism over the lives of our Jewish citizens, in America and overseas. Then what was the point about sitting through all those Never Again lectures!?
I strongly agree, especially when you consider what the UK has done to its citizens to placate Mohammedan migrants and their barbaric customs and "laws" that they believe they can carry along with them to any place they pretend to be refugees.
Modern Western liberals want to atone themselves out of existence.
Things like standing up for your own people and values, telling a foreigner that we prefer our home and culture over theirs, not bending the knee anytime some angry child screams "I have rights!", have all been conditioned out of them like jolted lab rats or Alex in Clockwork Orange. Better to die than to do anything that makes you resemble a "conservative". Only backwards bigots take their own side in a fight.
Part One: March 25, 2025: The families of individuals affected by Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel have filed a federal lawsuit against protest leaders and student organizations at Columbia University, accusing them of aiding and abetting terrorism. The lawsuit, submitted in Manhattan federal court, names Mahmoud Khalil, a central figure in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia, along with members of student groups such as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace.
The plaintiffs include six relatives of current hostages still held in Gaza, as well as American IDF soldiers and former captives. They allege that the defendants served as a propaganda arm for Hamas in New York, using the Columbia campus to amplify the group’s messaging and stir unrest. The complaint describes the protest leaders as active participants in spreading Hamas ideology, asserting that their activities go far beyond free expression and into the realm of organized support for a designated terrorist organization, reports from The New York Post.
n addition to Khalil, the lawsuit names Nerdeen Kiswani of Within Our Lifetime–United for Palestine, Maryam Alwan of Columbia SJP, and Cameron Jones of Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice for Peace. These individuals are accused of distributing Hamas-related materials, encouraging violence, and leading disruptive actions such as the occupation of Hamilton Hall and the setup of protest encampments. The suit also alleges that these activists responded to Hamas’ public calls for global supporters to “join the battle in any way they can,” implying a direct link between campus actions and Hamas directives.
The newspaper writes that the defendants clearly had prior knowledge, according to the lawsuit, calling them the propaganda division of Hamas, a designated terrorist group.
Part Two: It also goes as far as to suggest that some of the defendants had prior knowledge of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack because of the Columbia SJP’s inclusion in a signed statement supporting Hamas just hours before the massacre.
“Three minutes before Hamas began its attack on October 7, Columbia SJP posted on Instagram ‘We are back!!’ and announced its first meeting of the semester would be announced and that viewers should ‘Stay tuned,’” according to the suit.
The plaintiffs ultimately alleged that every time Hamas and its allies would put out a call for action on social media, the student groups would answer, with the encampment at Columbia’s campus and the Hamilton Hall takeover serving as prime examples.
The suit argues that the defendants are not protected under the constitutional right to free speech and protest, claiming their actions were coordinated with a foreign terrorist group.
Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. green card holder, is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for allegedly failing to disclose prior ties to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees on his visa application, a move that could justify his deportation.
The federal government lodged new accusations against Khalil over the weekend, noted The National Review, arguing the key omissions are grounds for deportation.
1000% correct. Next step in the process is to flip one of these losers so they give up the next up the chain, until we get to the money provider, then prosecute.
Oh, take your ridiculous claim of persecution of American Jews (I'm one) and stuff it. This is all being done in service to the policies of a genocidal FOREIGN STATE, one that by all rights ought to be viewed as a threat to our Constitutional Rights.
It seems to me they really don’t like America, so why are they here? I’ve read some very disturbing articles describing the gangs in South America and those that have infiltrated the US. Unfortunately, we are never given the full information which is not helpful. We then must rely on news reports, politicians etc. Which does not give me comfort nor confidence. Matt, I appreciate your digging into this and I trust you even though my feeling is you’re not happy about what’s transpiring.
It is odd to see kids come to our country and chant Death to America! but then I remember that the campus Hamasniks are the children of Islamo-Leftist academia, the same people who denounce our country and its citizens while also expecting to have state-subsidized lives and be paid well for their lame propaganda.
"How bout we try to be a SANE country that prioritizes the safety and civil rights of our own citizens over foreigners who come here regurgitating Hamas propaganda and trying to whip up a pogrom?"
You can't get there (SANE country) from here (whip up a pogrom).
This flinging about of buzzwords and slogans is so wokelike that it must be true about this rise of the "woke right".
It seems like he gave a concise statement that is certainly reasonable on the surface. Then you attack his use of “ buzz words” . Would you prefer a different use of adjectives? Try to prop up your argument with some substance. The play you just pulled does not advance your argument. He’ll, it doesn’t even define what you are arguing for.
The flames of anti-Zionism will stand in the way of progress in any U.S. political conversation about the Middle East, Hamas, Islam, terrorism, and Zionism as a project to give the Jewish people a political state after the Holocaust.
As a Jew by birth and Christian by faith, the only explanation of the hatred and murder of Jews for the past 2000 years that makes any sense to me is that a supernatural curse did come down upon the descendants of Isaac and maybe also the descendants of Ishmael when the Pharasees said "give us Barrabas." If Jesus were not the Christ, that theory makes no sense, but if he was, the idea of such a curse in a spirit realm makes sense even if Almighty God is not acting out the curse and even if it is only as toxic as the imagination of mankind gravitates toward sin and evil.
The words "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee" remain. By those words the Christian piece of the American ideal stands.
Now amount of sleuthing will parse out the good and the bad in government application of constitutional law here if the sleuth does not comprehend the basis of faith in the JudeoChristian Scriptures.
That idea did not occur to me. My default is also God centered. I believe the Zionist are Edomites, descendants of Esau, sent into the barren mountains to eventually migrate through the regions known today as Turkey and Russia, marrying locals and later claiming to be Jews, those that lived in Judea (the tribe of Judea and perhaps Benjiman). God’s renaming of Esau and casting him out and scripture statements of God’s hate for him lead me to believe the Zionist have always been after there lost birthright and they plan to get it back. They are the banksters of the world along with men like BB. They certainly are not Israelites or Jews, just Hebrews as was Abraham.
Dude nobody is threatening the American Jews. Stop rending your clothes. People - including many American Jews - are criticizing the actions of a foreign Middle Eastern government. Why that’s objectionable is beyond me.
It becomes a problem when it goes beyond speech as it did on some campuses. People also notice when other countries that are committing violence are not criticized even though the numbers of deaths are much higher, methods (like chemicals) worse, etc.
Though not specific to Hamas, the US has always penalized association with designated terrorist groups. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know exactly what constitutes illegal association with terrorist groups.
In another case, if I can believe the basic facts in the reporting, Khalil Mahmoud was a leader in the Columbia group SJP that reactivated their Instagram (dormant for months) account 3 minutes before the start of the 10/7 slaughter. If correct, a bit too much coincidence.
In any club, company, government agency etc., a spokesperson is one of the leaders. Usually one of the most trusted leaders who will reliably spout the right talking poinfs.
Please do inform us of what actual "country", in the modern conventional sense of a "sovereign nation" it is that you speak of. Going back through history, let's say the last 5,000 years or so, countries typically had more-or-less enforced "boundaries".
Spoiler alert: there wasn't one. There were nomadic, not incorporated groups.
Not that that in any way says they weren't living on the land, and certainly in no way is this intended to say that displacing people and not respecting them (or at least trying to) is in any way correct...just that there wasn't a "country".
Similarly, one can get into a circular analysis on your term "owned". By whom? Who was first? First dibs?
Matt, find a truly non partisan immigration lawyer, to run thru the myriad of reasons visas can be yanked. That will not be easy, because most tend to be very Progressive.
The Tufts students, and others, are possibly being removed for legal reasons, that have nothing whatsoever to do with speech. Maybe their offenses were not utilized for removal by previous administrations, but if they are infractions of valid laws, that allow for deportation, the WH can do so, if they wish.
Law school was eons ago, but I remember any falsehood on the paperwork, no matter how small, or missed deadline, was grounds to be bounced. Some visa holders and asylum applicants must report change any change of address, in a matter of days. Ditto for almost any criminal conviction. I have no idea if the public charge rule still exists, but basically you could not apply for any safety net program, no matter how small, for years after arrival. Drug use could trigger expulsion, as could any "moral turpitude".
The list is a mile long. An astute government immigration lawyer might find speech offensive, and work backwards, to find other legal grounds for revocation.
Thank you for the added detail. I'm not an attorney but admit suspecting that the "fine print" in visa applications provides amply room for the issuer of the visa for revocation if it deems the applicant to have violated good-faith agreements.
I just want the Classically Liberal representative republic I grew up in, and specifically, one whose citizens believe guests of said country should comport themselves LIKE guests, or expect to be asked to leave. And like any of us (who aren't steeped in self-loathing from Pre-Ks to Post-graduates), will escort those who don't think they have to abide by common courtesy, to the doors.
Can guests of the Classically Liberal republic you grew up criticize the actions of the government of Indonesia? How about China? India? Canada? Britain? —— Why not Israel?
Beware the road of 'good' intentions. History divulges a 99% failure rate in the long run. Then there are 'subversive' intentions like Ted Kennedy pushing 'chain migration' as a great thing for the country.
Biden purposely opening the borders wide to flood the country and flying in 30k 'asylum' seekers a month for almost 4 years.
Who decides what a good intention is and who benefits in the long wrong?
At the risk of putting too fine a point on matters but to reply to your query, Matt has done a lot of work on issues of censorship, particularly when it appears that there were sponsors associated with the government.
Of course not!! Having the Label Democrat is a free "Get-out-of-Jail card. That is, Until now!! People are sick to death of the double standard and want their rights back!
I’m not new here. I read every single post & watch every video. I’ve heard Matt simply mention, often obliquely, what’s been done to our own citizens. It’s been a perfunctory comment with no emotion or outrage. Thousands have been imprisoned for non-violent misdemeanors. No mention of the abuse they received & barely a word on how American citizens were detained for years without charge.
Even if you believe J6 was an insurrection the people involved are still Americans, and deserve due process. They were denied basic rights.
However, he immediately jumped on the proposed deportation of the non-citizen, Mahmoud Khalil. You would have thought this guy was a the male version of Mother Teresa.
I understand that Matt is having a hard time processing how corrupt his party has become. However, he is a good journalist who should be able to report equally & fairly without displaying his obvious bias. It seems as though Matt cares about one thing more than any, first amendment rights, mostly for non-citizens.
Ultimately the questions that must be asked and answered are whether those here illegally ( not merely gang members) are going to be deported ( assuming they don't sell deport) and if every deportation will require a trial ( and if such trials will allow for all the lawyering that would mean it would take decades for a meaningful number to de deported). I do not want the notion of due process to be eroded but all of this makes me wonder if Biden and mayorkas intended all along to open the flood gate for as many as possible knowing our legal system would then make it impractical to deport in large numbers.
I absolutely agree with your assessment. They had a mission, flood the country and maybe it will be too Overwhelming to tackle. Because if this, my opinion, Trump is setting examples. Pretty string ones, in hopes people will self deport. And, it seems to be working. Columbia will have a new president. Schools will lose their funding. It’s only been two months .
And what are the facts? Or are you suggesting it is wrong to infer intentions behind actions that clearly were harmful and that have never been addressed with an apology? Since you seem to know the facts please explain why they opened the border.
Because of your history, you tend to identify more with the rights of the guests than with the rights of those who wish to set boundaries regarding who can and cannot enter their home. You are biased, and looking for evidence to support your bias. That's not journalism, Matt.
Even assuming she did everything she was accused of, was there a trial where she was allowed to dispute evidence? Provided access to counsel? Any semblance of due process? Why’s Rubio the one speaking about this, shouldn’t it be to DoJ?
We can’t give every one of these disrupters a full trial with counsel. The dems let millions into the country. So she’s sent home, who cares? Nobody is sending her to prison. She’s not a citizen and doesn’t have a citizen’s rights.
Were you worried about the law when Biden flooded the country with 11 million illegal immigrants? This was the Cloward-Piven strategy (https://www.isme.in/cloward-piven-strategy-and-the-welfare-state-prof-sriram-prabhakar/) utilized by the Progressives to force their immigration plans on the US. The Biden administration guaranteed the system would be overwhelmed and that it would be impossible to process them all through the courts. You can whine all you want, but people like this and a whole lot more are eventually going back home.
Yes, she does. The Bill of Rights protects EVERY PERSON on US soil, not just citizens. She was arrested for writing an op-ed, which is PROTECTED SPEECH under 1A. As such, the Trump Admin is VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.
Sure we can. It doesn’t have to take months. Put the case in front of a judge, not a full jury. Set a lower bar for sufficient evidence. Record all the actions taken, evidence, presented and court proceedings. If we were worried about how much our judicial and penal systems cost us, we’d only ever lockup non-violent offenders. Governments that disregard due process in some cases disregard due process in all cases, including full citizens they’re trying to exert control over.
Then just say “We’re having her deported because she’s critical of US policy”. If State’s actually acting on its own, fine, drop the innuendo, say that they’re curtailing her speech because she’s not a citizen and not entitled to First Amendment protections. They’re just worried about optics, so they’re crafting this as-of-yet unsupported accusation of criminal actions.
State is the US institution that oversees legal immigration and processes for migrants, sets up tent cities in S. America for traveling migrants, provides directions and credit cards all through its NGOs . . . .but that was under Biden.
As I’ve stated above, if State is just acting on its own accord, the department should drop the pretense that this has anything to do with criminal actions, and just openly state that this is politically motivated. Rubio has the right to do so. No need to concoct reasons that, going by the lack of evidence presented in this and other actions the administration has taken recently, are presented without any indication that they’re actually true. Just state “foreign nationals will be deported if they’re critical of the US Government”. People here don’t seem to have much of a problem with that being the policy, it’s all done at the discretion of the State Department, no need to play make believe that this is about law and order when it’s about suppressing dissent.
That’s the real passive aggressive part, for lack of a better way of describing it.
Rather than just decide anything, jumble everything.
Both of the cease - fires in the two major wars seem to have fallen apart in much the same way. It’s always “we really tried”, while making sure it wouldn’t happen.
It’s like the whole point of the administration is PR, in certain major ways.
Yea, disappointing all 60 days of this presidency. Give me a break. Hey but eggs are down! Wasn’t everyone bitching about that ad nauseam last month? I’m not sure my brain can handle all this BS for the next 3.5 years. Attention people, we are $37 TRILLION in debt. Our country is a mess. We seem to be spending taxpayer money in every country in the world foe and friend. We need a wrecking ball. If we don’t change the course and soon, we will then truly have serious things to cry about. I say, if they hate our country go home.
“Rather than just decide anything, jumble everything. “
That pretty well sums up this administration and the previous one. I still can’t get over pardoning people presumed innocent, but that’s how things are done nowadays.
Sorry, not complicated at all. I am a citizen of USA. Anyone, YES ANYONE, who entered this country illegally is AN ILLEGAL ALIEN! These people who entered this country BROKE THE LAW, in my mind are eligible for deportation. Before the self righteous among you flip out, I say this knowing my former son in law, father of my grand daughter is an illegal. He and his family are here illegally, they do work BUT DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES! They do however get gov't benefits from food stamps to healthcare. This is more than likely the case for 95% (or more) of the illegals in our country. MY(OUR) taxes are going to people that are underserving. They clog our schools, hospitals, roads, stores etc. take jobs from citizens.
I for one do not care what "The Trump administration "believed. That belief is hardly grounded in the law. It is based on what is expedient. This same BS happened with Reagan, gave amnesty and pathway to citizenship in exchange for legislation that never came. If we don't stand for rule of law now, we are sunk.
I keep hearing about these numerous court cases brought by Democrats and leftist groups and "standing" in the case. I did not have standing when Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkis and the Democrats opened up the Southern Border(actually all borders) and allowed anyone, everyone come into MY COUNTRY!!
It is time to stop this leftist ," worried about democracy " "it is complicated", "enjoy constitutional protections", hyperbolic crybaby Bullshit!!
Matt, your holier than thou, righteous rhetoric has worn thin for me. I am 65yrs old, watched my cost of living increase., safety of my country die, why don't you fight the REAL FIGHT IN FRONT OF US, if what you perceive "MIGHT HAPPEN" come true, be a Paul Revere then. We have a very limited time to clean up the mess your Democrat Party and Joe Biden created. Fight the Fight Before Us, not the one you perceive may be.
I applaud your wanting to get to the truth, but it sure seems that a lot of your subscribers believe that no one in the US on a student visa has any constitutionally protected speech. Not to protest US policy or the policies of another country. Maybe they’re right. Who knows? So determining the nature and extent of the speech that leads to your deportation is interesting but of no import.
Just come here, pay your tuition, keep your head down and your mouth shut, get your degree and either leave or apply for green card status which also affords you no free speech rights of any kind despite your green card earnings being taxed.
"apply for green card status which also affords you no free speech rights of any kind despite your green card earnings being taxed." -- EVERYONE on US soil is protected by the Bill of Rights. Research better.
That is true about it being a question of what kind of country we want to be. Part of that is we should all -Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, progressive, conservative, moderate and in between - should demand that our AWOL Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform. Presidents and judges should not be deciding who comes or who stays. But when one exploits the existing law the next one cannot be faulted for reining that in.
True, but some of what has been reported goes far beyond just asking guests to leave. The problem is I can't trust any of the sources of the reports so I view them with heavy skepticism. I hope Matt and his crew can find some clarity on the current immigration/guest/visa/ICE landscape so we can judge the Admin's actions by facts, not partisan narratives and propaganda campaigns.
Matt and other investigative journalist digging in to determine the facts is critical, and it’s also critical to understand the complex and nuanced legal framework that applies to immigrants.
We all have biases, but Matt is clearly committed to an open process that curates objective facts from first hand sources. So the short answer in trying to establish the ground truth of the situation he is open to discovering where he has been wrong and disclosing that as well.
What Truth? The Truth that our country was purposely invaded by people who we know NOTHING ABOUT? The British are failing
On Free Speech, this is not free speech, it is about a sovereign PEOPLE, not wanting ILLEGAL ALIENS allowed into their country by a Democrat president who would not uphold the rule of law.
The bill of rights does not specify anywhere that it applies to “citizens.” It just uses the words “person” and “people.”
SCOTUS has blurred the line a bit when it comes to free speech. It doesn’t say that visa-holders have no free speech rights. It does say that regardless of these rights, the Executive Branch can deport the vis-holders if their free-speech endangers the country or its foreign policy.
Which, of course, raises two question …(1) Does the free-speech have to actually, objectively harm our foreign policy? Or can the administration just subjectively claim it does to shut down dissent?…AND… (2) To what extent do the 5th and 14th amendment due process rights (which, again, apply to “persons” and not “citizens”) have to be followed?
Your comment zeros in on the key points: the parties covered by the law and the extent to which they are covered. Thank you for raising the issue.
I'll add my thoughts:
The United States of America (US) is a sovereign nation -- to the degree to which one acknowledges the existence of sovereign nations (for the record -- I do).
The extent to which any laws governing the US apply to an individual are demarcated by the extent to which US law applies. This is somewhat circular-sounding but laws, protections, guarantees or other grants or restrictions can only apply to covered parties to, over or for whom the US government can claim authority or otherwise address.
As such, it would seem that law, here specifically US law, can only apply to those bound by US law by "membership" -- and thus to citizens.
So while the Bill of Rights or the Constitution might not address citizens directly and just refer to "persons", one could argue there are no other parties to which it holds or can be enforced. That is, the rights established in the Constitution and enforced by the US Government apply to citizens as citizens of the US are the only persons who fall in the "scope" of US law.
Then, one could specify to what degree visitors to the US -- people admitted to the US but not legally citizens -- enjoy those rights are protections.
Actually, I'm going to quibble about my quibbling!
The extent of the application of US law is the geographic region where it applies.
Then the primary group to which is applies would be US citizens.
To people who want to enter the country but are not US citizens, further restrictions can be applied. These are presumably identified in the visa application.
Thus, a person in the last group, non-citizen admitted to the US but under the conditions of the visa application, gets to enjoy the benefits guaranteed by the US constitution so long as their presence is legal and they do not violate the conditions of the visa agreement.
I-485 is form to acquire Green Card, Section 9 contains the questions pertinent to whether the applicant is approved and eventually can become a citizen. I recommend downloading and reading the questions to help the curious decide for themselves
Yes this administration IS wrong in continuing to support Isreal with weapons to kill more Palestinians AND to arrest people voicing concern over the GENOCIDE we are complicit in , in Gaza.!
looks like 43.h, 43.i, 44 and 45 are the nub here. i guess like w so much of law, if a prosecutor or other govt official wants to apply this to you, they can at least try.
I don’t think there is a special “guest” constitution. There is only one.
I am fully onboard board with expelling someone who commits vandalism or assault or even gets a DUI or disorderly persons conviction. I don’t think that being present at a demonstration where vandalism happens is enough, unless there is evidence you helped plan or direct the vandalism.
As for giving aid to terrorist groups- yes that is certainly a legitimate reason for expulsion, but there needs to be evidence and due process. There are certainly Iranian and Hamas operatives here in the US directly working for enemy groups (some of whom crossed the border illegally). We should go after those people and groups relentlessly not waste our time on students protesting against Israel and Gaza but not committing or plotting violence nor directly linked to Hamas. There are other priorities. Stopping campus violence against Jews is one of those priorities but the majority of violent protestors seem to be American as far as I can tell. Make arrests for vandalism and disorderly persons. If a foreigner is charged and convicted, expel them.
Of course, if we had foreign students harassing gays or African-American students on campus they would have been expelled or harshly prosecuted under Biden. No doubt.
I’ve spent time in places like HK and Turkey when there are protests and as a foreigner I avoid them, and I don’t sign petitions, donate funds or even buy t-shirts. I know I can be summarily expelled (or prosecuted) just for being in the proximity of anti-gov protests, or really for any reason at all. I remember being assigned a communist party “minder” in Vietnam because we were asking locals too many questions about a recent environmental disaster. I don’t want America to become like those places. Tourists and visa holders are entitled to free speech
Regardless of political affiliations, our citizens have been conditioned to be completely polarized, assuming every decision made/action taken by anyone in government is politically motivated.
Congratulations to everyone in MSM (Fox, I’m looking at you too). The term “useful idiots” could never fit anyone more completely.
I wonder if what is taking place in Europe is what is causing the changes. I have friends in various spots in Europe, and the UK, France, and Germany are seeing particular issues right now. I have talked to a few people that believe Islam will be the dominant religion in the UK within the decade, and that it's being set up that way.
My friend in France had been sending me pictures of the streets of Paris for some time (places that I was at) with the encampments, and how things were changing, but about 3 years ago stopped for fear for his family and who was watching what he was doing. This is a guy that flew a drone around Dubai, so not exactly someone afraid of authority....
Germany is beginning to be like those were, but I honestly don't have as close a ties to the people I know there.
This is what the real rulers of the world want. We westerners got too close to them so they have to shut us down, so they are flooding us with the most radical people on earth. The truly interesting thing is that they think they can control them, or.. perhaps they know something none of us know and know they won't need to control them for long....
You must refrain from putting your brain in “ time out” for extended periods of time. It’s most unbecoming to a European intellectual, such as yourself. A note from the colonies…..
America was NOT "already owned by indigenous Indians/Mexicans."
There were many tribes here in America, with varying notions of what their own territories were, and they regularly encroached on the territories of other tribes.
They also practiced slavery & torture, just like the European conquerors did.
While the actions of the US government against native tribes was unconscionable, it was nothing new. This is human history, whenever a larger, more powerful group encountered a smaller, less powerful group, the larger group took over. That's it.
That is human history, whether you like it or not.
Thanks for this, Matt. Glad I support you. The thing that is getting missed in this is that basically these students are here for their own Color Revolution inside the US. They don't have any particularly valid or insightful information to add to the debate. They're either a.) caught up in hellraising, or b.) sent here deliberately. It will be interesting to read what you find out. Our MSM is committed to the Color Revolution. We can't expect any meaningful insight from them.
What’s funny is that a color revolution within our own country is stupid, but some defense of people of color being engaged in these wars is very appropriate yet not allowed. Discussing what’s going on between Israel and Palestine is not really a color revolution. Is it?
Not only is it not a “color revolution”, whatever that may be, it’s also not a political issue. Of course race and politics imbue every aspect of our lives, but it’s far more useful to understand that Gaza is being completely destroyed, and its inhabitants wantonly murdered. It is Genocide, and Genocide is not a political act, it’s a purely criminal one.
Every citizen should support peaceful, intelligent, and sincere efforts to bring an end to this monstrous tragedy whatever their nationality or ethnicity.
The only “genocide” in history where if all the hostages were released and terrorists surrendered, it would end tomorrow. But yes, keep promoting your “peaceful” efforts and vilifying Israel aka Jewish people with your blood libels. It’s too bad you weren’t born in the 1930s, you would have been so at home in Nazi Germany. I know I know, it’s just a “coincidence” that you also seem to hate the same people that the Nazis hated, Jewish people. Sorry sorry, “Israel”! Not Jewish people. This has nothing to do with Jewish people. Got it!
"vilifying Israel aka Jewish people" -- Stop being dishonest by conflating the two. You know full well that criticizing a country's GOVERNMENT is NOT the same as being against its PEOPLE. Enough with the hasbara.
Homie try to keep up with the situation. Israel doesn't care about the hostages, and releasing them would not put an end to anything, only surrender Hamas' only bargaining chip. Israel doesn't care about the Israeli hostages so much that they have actually killed many of them themselves, by bombing locations where the hostages were known to be. The Bibas kids were casualties in this fashion. Israel was also fully aware the Oct 7th attack was going to take place, and allowed it so that they finally had a convenient pretext to genocide/ethnic cleanse the pesky Palestinians away from where they wanted to build more. These are all a matter of public fact. Every relevant governing world body has described Israel's actions as war crimes, but if you insist on rooting for the bad guys, at least deal with correct observations.
Actually, you’re close, it was my grandfather who was at home in Nazi Germany. At home, that is, until the Nazis worked him to death in a camp. Arbeit macht frei.
You have no idea who you’re talking to, or what you’re saying, so let me give you a brief outline of what Israel looked like to another Jewish man:
“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”~Albert Einstein
Same! I really appreciate that you are covering this so diligently Matt, we need your expertise on this one. Free speech is your beat, and many of these cases sound like speech issues to me.
One of the many reasons I’m more than happy to give Matt 50 bucks a year: we live in an age of conflation where nuance is vital and portraits are painted with broad strokes. If I care about the first amendment, I have to be willing to submit my opinions to the rule of law, regardless of who my president is. Being disgusted by someone’s first amendment activity is not enough.
Having said that, what’s abundantly clear is that some Chinese students have been friendly with the CCP and worse, likely proxies, grabbing vital research for years. That has to stop from a standpoint of national security.
So, to me what’s unanswered is the possibility that these individuals were compensated for their ‘politics’. If you are trying to figure out the paymasters, is this how you go about it? I have no idea, it just comes to the top of my mind when I see this behavior.
Great point. Not just are they being paid, but who is footing their bills? Many are from nations that are overwhelmingly impoverished, and it is my understanding financial aid is not available to non American citizens. So who is paying the $70K a year bill, for some of these young people to attend some of the most expensive colleges in the world, in some of the most expensive cities in the world?
Perhaps their families are picking up the tabs, but it would be interesting to know, from where the money is derived. The public charge rule makes it illegal for them to utilize the US safety net, for their first 5 years, if not longer.
Good point. I’ve always wondered how the “ thanks for participating “ funds reach the participants without detection.Its got to be some elaborate trickle down maze….
these are very commonplace politics. It’s a very very large group of people who are opposed to our foreign policy activity. So why would they need to be paid?
In fact, a great deal of Trump’s mandate was anti-war. We just left that little Israel war loophole slipped through. We ignored it, and hoped for the best.
The terror attack in Yemen three days ago was a shocking reversal of Trump’s expressed desire to make peace. He seems to be completely bought by the Israel Lobby. It’s time to confront this directly.
After the blunt force trauma inflicted on the American psyche by the DNC I hoped Trump would bring an even handed calm to American politics and begin to move We the People toward the healthy national conversation and change our Republic so desperately needs. President Trump meeting the aftermath of polarizing MSM TDS hysteria with more "who knows what the truth is" sideshow theatrics isn't helping the nation or the citizen. Likewise, the administrations over reaction and willingness to ignore DUE PROCESS for the sake of faux p.c. propaganda points plunges average Americans back into the twisting in emotional space political black hole we hoped to escape. "Everything means everything so nothing means anything."
We definitely need clarity on these issues because we're not getting any from the mainstream media. It's why I don't believe anything they say without it be corroborated by independent media. (This is also the same philosophy I have when someone goes off based on selective reporting that a cop shot someone without provocation, etc. -- let's see the evidence and investigation and then make the decision. Case in point: Ferguson.)
I don't think anyone should have their visa revoked because of something they said, but visas are not "you get to say and do anything you want" cards. They are still guests of our country and if they engage in activities that are anti-American or they commit a crime -- even a misdemeanor-- I don't have a problem pulling their visas. I would like clarity on how these laws work, though, because I honestly don't know.
I think maybe we should lean towards having a problem with pulling their visas? Because if we start with not having a problem with it, then they give us just enough information for us to justify it. You kind of see how that works?
We think it through carefully and humanely, they think on how to exploit our thoughts .
I believe in legal immigration, I just think our system is broken. I also think student visas are terrific and we should have people from all over the world participate in our education system -- but not for the purpose of tearing down our country. (Of course, I think there is a lot of reasons why this is possible based on the problems in many of our high education programs.) I think you're right that we need to be careful and humane, and many of these people are exploitive. That said, we should make it standard to pull visas of those who violate the rules of their entry -- like I said, a visa isn't a "do whatever you want" card. .... I know a LOT of immigrants who became citizens. One of my son's closest friends is a Russian-American, his parents came over here 30+ years ago because they had little freedom and no chance of economic prosperity. The dad has a major job contributing to society, and their whole family is very pro-America. My old next door neighbors came from Vietnam. They had an American flag on their door and what they lived through is nothing that most of us understand. They had an anniversary party for when they became citizens. Some immigrants don't value American values -- some value them more than even some of our citizens. As a sovereign nation, I think we can and should pick and choose who gets to become Americans.
Our country has not done well with the whole “if we think you say or think anti-American stuff you lose your rights” thing. Alien & Sedition Acts, WW2 internment, McCarthyism, the various trumped-up charges MLK was arrested for, etc., etc.
No, obviously I don't believe that. I'm sorry if that's how I came across. I'm talking about individuals coming to our country on student visas then through their ACTIONS should have their visas revoked.
The far left has always been opposed to free speech (and the far right, i.e. McCarthyism) -- when I was in college (UC Santa Cruz) I was editor of the alternative conservative newspaper. It was a monthly newsmagazine format and we raised money from businesses in the community to public. We'd put our copies where the campus allowed free publications to be left, and then witnessed people going around, collecting our magazine, and throwing them away. It was an important lesson for me at 19.
My problem is when people come to this country as guests and then work to undermine our institutions, NOT through their words, but through their actions. And that's why I don't have a problem revoking visas when warranted. But like I said -- I don't know what the law is on student visas. A student from a foreign country is a lot different than an American citizen chanting anti-American things.
I’m a former newspaper publisher, and care deeply about free speech. But when it comes to these activists, (students from authoritarian states on visas) being deported, I’m really struggling to find the F***s to care about them. Currently it’s a zero. They’ve deliberately come here to exploit our freedoms and American project only to undermine it. They would never ever reciprocate by giving us the same freedoms if they were in charge. Unlike real hostages and kidnapped, these dopes will be repatriated to their countries and be just fine. It pains me to no end that we are making martyrs and heroes out of them. Change my mind.
Please, quote the part(s) of her comment that describe her direct observations of factual events, rather than being just opinions/speculations/predictions.
First things first. If you are granted a visa to study in the U.S, does that give you the same rights as an American citizen? What are the parameters of a student visa? If on your application you say it is for educational purposes, and you get arrested or thrown out of school, is at that point you have voided your contract, and asked to leave? So many questions Matt, and before we address free speech issues, you must lay the groundwork for just what the responsibilities of the visa holder are.
Your work on free speech issues is second to none, and I support you 100 percent.
Personally, my view is that these students should be allowed speech, but as soon as you have campus demonstrations, harassment of fellow students, take overs of campus buildings, and vandalism, it’s game over.
Kahil came here on a student visa to get his graduate degree. He graduated, yet stayed in campus housing and continued to protest. He was dishonest on his applications as he worked in Gaza. Palestinian relief work. Intern possibly, but he worked there for months. I thought he was working on his graduate degree? He graduated in December 2024, yet he worked in Gaza from June through November. Hmm. Call me a skeptic, my husband does all the time. But, sorry folks I’m not buying his story.
As I understand the regulation of INS (or whatever it's called now) for foreign nationals living in the U.S., "espousing support for a USG-designated terrorist organization and/or encouraging others to do so" is grounds for deportation. Hamas is a USG-designated terrorist organization. Ozturk may have done this. In the famous case of Mahmoud Khalil, he certainly did this (Hamas). Hezbollah is a USG-designated terrorist organizaiton: In the case of Aliwieh, she was barred from reentry because material supporting Hezbollah was found on her iphone, and she'd just attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah in Beirut. In the famous case of Suri, he failed to note on his application for a student visa that his father-in-law was an advisor of the leader of Hamas. That's visa fraud.
I think that what's going on is that little of this--these regulations-- were being enforced under Biden. But they are being ruthlessly enforced under ferocious Trump.
Matt, the previous Trump administration didn’t have 10/7. Students on college campuses weren’t encamped, wearing the keffiyeh, the uniform of Hamas, and screaming for the end of the West. Intimidating Jews and attacking them in cities around the world and protesting exactly at the point 10/7 was happening was not something anyone would have considered could happen.
It is naive in the extreme to imagine Islam is not on its Long March to a caliphate and they’re using our open societies to accomplish their goals. Khalil wouldn’t deny it if he were honest, he’s proud of what he’s doing, he’s serving his people and Allah. People need to understand the West is the enemy of the stated mission of Islam. We are the devils who need to revert (not convert, Islam believes we’re all born Muslims) be enslaved or be killed.
Neither Khalil nor Ozturk will care, or be allowed to care, about you or your children when islam gets a foothold because you stuck up for their free speech. There won’t be any free speech anyway. In fact having lived in a country where there were no human rights, as I have too, you need to have eyes wide open and know your honorable intentions are jeopardizing your family and mine in the future. But perhaps you believe protecting Khalil’s or Ozturk’s rights trump these fears. OK, but don’t be blind to the danger then. Know you’re helping to plant the seeds of having all our freedoms lost.
Some will accuse me of hyperbole and exaggeration, maybe even you, Matt. But after living and working in the strictest country in the Middle East for ten years, and knowing firsthand the fervor of Islam, I can say with sincerity this is no exaggeration. Many good Muslims would back me up on this. Many decent Muslims are as terrified of the Khalils and Ozturks of the world and how they’re being used as many of us are in the West.
I just hope in ten or twenty years time we don’t have to look back and say with terrible regret, what were we thinking, how could this have happened? Just as we do with the Holocaust.
Are Khalil's record and Ozturk's the same, though?
We know a lot about what he did—he was public about his activism and there's lots of footage—but almost nothing is in the public record about what she did, other than her friends' and her attorney's statements and what Secy Rubio has said.
Legal noncitizen residents do have some first amendment rights. If the scope of those constitutional rights is BROADER than sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, then parts of the Act could be found unconstitutional, as applied to the facts of Ozturk's case. Don't believe there’s much case law on this.
As well, we citizens also have a first amendment right to hear and read what legal residents say and write while they are in the U.S.—the first amendment protects the right to receive information. (See Twitter files.)
If all Ozturk did was coauthor an op-ed, then she's in a different position from Khalil. Hers would present a first amendment case.
I was a green card holder for almost three decades. I faithfully followed all protocols as do millions of green card holders, for fear I would lose that precious privilege. You certainly cannot be complicit in sedition. If you’re supporting a named terrorist organization as a natural citizen you will be in hot water. If you’re here as a guest, you could, and perhaps should be repatriated to where you came from if you are suspected of sedition. You broke the contract you signed. It’s not a right to be here, it’s an earned privilege.
Thank you I hope I’ve contributed to this amazing experiment that’s America, it’s unique in the world. Beautiful, even with all its flaws.
I have lived in a couple of spiritually dark places. Oppression comes in many forms religious and otherwise, such as communism or heavy handed socialism. Of course the oppression is almost always carried out with the best of intentions. Just as Khalil and Ozturk and all the misguided supporters of Iran and its proxies believe what they’re doing is for the greater good.
However, I prefer my family not to be a victim of their good intentions.
you might want to consider that it’s not a matter than being non-citizens it’s a matter of whether or not what they’re saying is right or wrong for the rest of the citizens here. You’re not considering it by not mentioning it.
If you let government agents determine what's "helpful" speech you're well on your way to authoritarianism. Free speech includes speech that people dislike.
Thank you for trying to find real answers rather than just stoking partisan flames.
Racket News has my subscription for this reason. I first came across MT two years ago when he was facing slanderous leading questions by a House Committee. I didn't like his writing at first as I got too used to enjoying partisan flames.
It is great to have you join, Simon. If you get curious about what he's done all these years, the Rolling Stone coverage of the financial madness is great. And all the books are top-notch. If you're a presidential campaign nut, Spanking the Donkey and Smells Like Dead Elephants are too good to miss.
“Partisan flames”??? You mean something you disagree with?
They're nice to warm yourself by on a cold winter's day?
Have you possibly gotten a little too close to the flames?
of course you know this will stir flames anyways because discussion of the truth and what’s going on is exactly what the whole point of the flames are.
not that I don’t agree with you that is not Matt’s intent.
Yes, exactly. It is really frustrating to read lefty rags' claims using language like "solely" - but almost always refuse to ground such a claim from a quote from the person cited, on the record, in full context. And when later it turns out that the claim was never true, even at the time it was reported, we never see a correction printed.
None of this makes what the administration is doing wrong either. I have also been casting a wide net for legal and historical context and analysis.
One thing that should be really clear to anyone who believes in a sovereign state is that, as a guiding principle, guests to our country are not citizens - they are guests! Guests are here by invitation and can be asked to leave.
So this is where things get complicated… check out the first attachment here. Even the previous Trump administration believed people already in the country enjoy Constitutional protections. So the how and the why become important.
I was a foreigner abroad for many years and never expected I was entitled to rights (in part because I lived in a country where people had none), but to me this is more about what kind of country we want to be. But it’s not clear what exactly is happening
I don't mean to be a buzz-kill but I suspect in the end SCOTUS may find a lot of this moot, as Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the discretionary authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a visa or other immigration documentation after its issuance. It also explicitly states that there shall be no means of judicial review or habeas corpus petition from the discretionary decision to revoke a visa under section 221(i) or any other habeas corpus provision.
At the end of the day a lot of attorneys will generate a lot of "work products" and make a lot of money during the evolution and promotion of this case. You can of course argue the application of 221(i) until the cows come home but I do believe the legal foundation for revocation and deportation, in the matters of Ozturk and Mahmoud anyway, is already cast and laid.
Bingo -- yes.
Visas and other temporary immigration documents or permits are issued with conditions that are reviewable by the issuer (or associated parties) and can be revoked if the issuer (or associated party) finds that the receiver violated good-faith conditions in the permits.
Moral of story: when in Rome, don't piss off the Romans.
You put it much more elegantly than I would have: Residents can afford to be arrogant, belligerent, sloppy, and mean - guests, not so much. Just a little humor of course........right?
Seems like a common sense approach. I'm a legal permanent resident of the Philippines and it was made very clear to me that any of the activities Ozturk and Mahmoud participated in were grounds for revocation, deportation and blacklisting. I avoid any protests/rallies, try not to be an ugly American and just enjoy my life.
When in Rome, don’t criticize the Israelis.
So when a graduate student writes an op-ed, what "good faith conditions" has she violated? And does this justify seizing her on the street, a year later, and shipping her a thousand miles away to prison in Louisiana? What kind of fucked up country do you want to live in?
Love it!!! “When in Rome, don’t piss off the Romans.” It ain’t easy to be succinct, profound, and humorous all at the same time, but you just nailed it.
Correct. It seems to me that the confusion many are making, including Matt, is that once the deportation of student visa holders or green card holders becomes “common place” - it is only a short leap to deporting citizens for some violation in the law that the Trump Administration dreams up. To which I flatly reject. Citizens have more rights than non-citizens and we should act accordingly. These “deportations” are to a very small number of people in the country who have violated the terms of their visa. So I say bye, bye. It’s about time the government did something about this organized scourge that has swept over university campuses. When state and local law enforcement have done nothing, I am glad the Feds have finally jumped into the breach. For the actual number of people involved here, it seems to me as overkill. Lots of big money and news print wasted on nothing.
Agree and disagree on various things:
1.) I think you're exaggerating a bit by saying "it is only a short leap to deporting citizens for some violation in the law that the Trump Administration dreams up." Given the scope of the problem -- some 10 million illegal entries into the US in the last 4 years? -- there is a genuine risk of people getting pulled into a dragnet. But the sheer number of legitimate "candidates" for removal makes me think that there won't be much effort or interest in targeting (legal) citizens.
2.) Given the aforementioned size of the problem and the arguable problem of activist judges -- and I'm not comfortable with the term or concept but it does appear that there are partisan actors in our judicial system (e.g., the lawfare of the last four years) -- there is a further problem in the amount of time needed to address every instance of "judicial review" (e.g., Google tells me there are 677 district court judges who are nominated by presidents). We've already seen several such cases. I was wondering about precedent and it seems that judges have been particularly keen on blocking actions by Trump:
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/23/trump-courts-injunctions
Sorry, call me conspiratorial but this does not seem to be a coincidence.
No objection to "dreamers"? Biden's open-door policy? (On the latter I am not sure of what official proclamations Biden made but in practice it certainly was an open-door policy).
My point being that the "devil's in the details" and these early cases may be indications of future success or failure in the administration's efforts to clean up the immigration mess worsened over the last four years.
I remain stunned that no-one ever seems to note that it's not as though we were running a "poor people shortage" prior to the illegal immigration wave. Who do you think will suffer? People already in need of limited resources. Not the denizens of Martha's Vineyard.
But, since I said I did agree, you're spot on with the silliness...that's what it is: "toxic silliness"...that has gripped campuses for decades.
College students go to college to learn...not to lecture!
(Speaking as a converted college radical who got to watch the "protest industry" while in grad school at the University of Minnesota).
But I do think the "forces of opposition" are trying every option they can to throw a wrench in Trump's efforts. They need to be countered.
You have yet to prove that "these people" have violated the terms of not just a visa, but of a permanent resident Green Card. What laws have they been charged with breaking? What hearing have they received where they have the ability to contest the charges? The answer, in all of the prominent cases, is NONE. It's clear the intent of the Trump crew is to render illegal any criticism of the actions of a certain foreign state, with implications going far beyond restrictions on the speech rights of non-citizens.
As Obama made clear, CITIZENS can be detained indefinitely (suspension of habeas corpus) if designated as "domestic terrorists". (Chris Hedges tried to get SCOTUS to over-rule but had "no standing"). Hundreds of non-violent January 6th protesters served a median of 60 days in jail for MISDEMEANORS. Many of these people have their lives ruined. Soon you will be a "Domestic terrorist" for criticizing Zionism and US MidEast policies (now along with Ukraine the basis of our war profiteering economy).
People routinely overstay their VISAs in the US. These deportations are specific to students who dare criticize what Israel is doing.
Thanks for the post. Hmmm....looks pretty clear cut to me.
It is very clear cut to anyone who is being honest. For whatever reason, Matt has founded a newfound appreciation for nuance. Go figure.
Are you a lawyer? Because I don't think you understand the difference between visa revocation and deportation, two different processes.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you aren’t a citizen and don’t have a visa, you aren’t allowed to be here. That’s how it worked when I was an expat earlier in my career.
Greg, are you a lawyer? Why in the world would you revoke someone’s visa & not then deport them (if they were in the country) unless you were part of the Biden administration?
It’s like starting your car, putting it in gear, and not driving off.
Driving off is different than starting your car and putting it in gear, I will grant you…
As I read how 221(i) has been applied historically, it seems to apply to visa holders outside the U.S., or returning to the U.S. and denied entry. (The Dr. Alawieh case from Brown University would be a classic example.) Am I wrong? Because if it has historically been applied at Secy of State (and, it says, consular officials) for people outside the U.S. or returning from outside the U.S., perhaps it doesn't apply for people already in the U.S.(Khalil from Columbia; Suri from Georgetown Prince Alwaleed Center). I am asking, not asserting.
Interesting. I learned some important points about the extent of protections a non citizen has. Thanks. Based on your analysis is the matter, why the hell is all of this “ protect ma rights” going on? Other than some lawyers making Monet….
I would guess it’s because as many issues we’ve confronted in this country, interested parties like to start the conversation from a premise that is far from the original set of facts.
"what kind of country we want to be..."
(cue weepy string section)
How bout we try to be a SANE country that prioritizes the safety and civil rights of our own citizens over foreigners who come here regurgitating Hamas propaganda and trying to whip up a pogrom?
Also, these same foreigners have to sign a form swearing that they will not offer support to a designated terror org, which Hamas clearly is, or else their visas could be revoked and they could be deported.
It's clear that the Secy of State has wide latitude to deport any foreigners that threaten American interests, and it's certainly in our interests to not add any more bodies to the roving packs of Jew haters who refer to themselves as "pro-Palestinian" and yet who never say or do a thing to help actual Palis but instead chant "From the River to the Sea" (meaning the Jewish state must be destroyed) and "Globalize the Intifada" (which obviously means attack any Jew you find.)
This is not a Free Speech or First Amendment issue, no matter how many times people try to make it so, it is about the terms of visas for foreigners and how they can be revoked. Supporting an org that murders and kidnaps American citizens is certainly something we might ask our visitors to abstain from, is that too much?
No one's being sent to the gulag or the firing squad, they just have to go home to mama and papa. And we can't even do this to protect American Jews?
What liberals are essentially saying now is: we prioritize proceduralism over the lives of our Jewish citizens, in America and overseas. Then what was the point about sitting through all those Never Again lectures!?
I strongly agree, especially when you consider what the UK has done to its citizens to placate Mohammedan migrants and their barbaric customs and "laws" that they believe they can carry along with them to any place they pretend to be refugees.
Modern Western liberals want to atone themselves out of existence.
Things like standing up for your own people and values, telling a foreigner that we prefer our home and culture over theirs, not bending the knee anytime some angry child screams "I have rights!", have all been conditioned out of them like jolted lab rats or Alex in Clockwork Orange. Better to die than to do anything that makes you resemble a "conservative". Only backwards bigots take their own side in a fight.
WAIT Bull: When your own country is taken over by Evangelical/Zionists. We will NOT cry for you.
Part One: March 25, 2025: The families of individuals affected by Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel have filed a federal lawsuit against protest leaders and student organizations at Columbia University, accusing them of aiding and abetting terrorism. The lawsuit, submitted in Manhattan federal court, names Mahmoud Khalil, a central figure in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia, along with members of student groups such as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace.
The plaintiffs include six relatives of current hostages still held in Gaza, as well as American IDF soldiers and former captives. They allege that the defendants served as a propaganda arm for Hamas in New York, using the Columbia campus to amplify the group’s messaging and stir unrest. The complaint describes the protest leaders as active participants in spreading Hamas ideology, asserting that their activities go far beyond free expression and into the realm of organized support for a designated terrorist organization, reports from The New York Post.
n addition to Khalil, the lawsuit names Nerdeen Kiswani of Within Our Lifetime–United for Palestine, Maryam Alwan of Columbia SJP, and Cameron Jones of Columbia-Barnard Jewish Voice for Peace. These individuals are accused of distributing Hamas-related materials, encouraging violence, and leading disruptive actions such as the occupation of Hamilton Hall and the setup of protest encampments. The suit also alleges that these activists responded to Hamas’ public calls for global supporters to “join the battle in any way they can,” implying a direct link between campus actions and Hamas directives.
The newspaper writes that the defendants clearly had prior knowledge, according to the lawsuit, calling them the propaganda division of Hamas, a designated terrorist group.
Part Two: It also goes as far as to suggest that some of the defendants had prior knowledge of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack because of the Columbia SJP’s inclusion in a signed statement supporting Hamas just hours before the massacre.
“Three minutes before Hamas began its attack on October 7, Columbia SJP posted on Instagram ‘We are back!!’ and announced its first meeting of the semester would be announced and that viewers should ‘Stay tuned,’” according to the suit.
The plaintiffs ultimately alleged that every time Hamas and its allies would put out a call for action on social media, the student groups would answer, with the encampment at Columbia’s campus and the Hamilton Hall takeover serving as prime examples.
The suit argues that the defendants are not protected under the constitutional right to free speech and protest, claiming their actions were coordinated with a foreign terrorist group.
Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. green card holder, is currently under an investigation by the Department of Justice for allegedly failing to disclose prior ties to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees on his visa application, a move that could justify his deportation.
The federal government lodged new accusations against Khalil over the weekend, noted The National Review, arguing the key omissions are grounds for deportation.
1000% correct. Next step in the process is to flip one of these losers so they give up the next up the chain, until we get to the money provider, then prosecute.
Oh, take your ridiculous claim of persecution of American Jews (I'm one) and stuff it. This is all being done in service to the policies of a genocidal FOREIGN STATE, one that by all rights ought to be viewed as a threat to our Constitutional Rights.
Geezus, hyperbolic much? There's not an ounce of intellectual honesty in that diatribe.
Defend that flabby statement with some facts… just for fun
It seems to me they really don’t like America, so why are they here? I’ve read some very disturbing articles describing the gangs in South America and those that have infiltrated the US. Unfortunately, we are never given the full information which is not helpful. We then must rely on news reports, politicians etc. Which does not give me comfort nor confidence. Matt, I appreciate your digging into this and I trust you even though my feeling is you’re not happy about what’s transpiring.
It is odd to see kids come to our country and chant Death to America! but then I remember that the campus Hamasniks are the children of Islamo-Leftist academia, the same people who denounce our country and its citizens while also expecting to have state-subsidized lives and be paid well for their lame propaganda.
They're just mimicking their mentors.
I want to live in the kind of country that defends Western Civilization from those trying to destroy it.
"How bout we try to be a SANE country that prioritizes the safety and civil rights of our own citizens over foreigners who come here regurgitating Hamas propaganda and trying to whip up a pogrom?"
You can't get there (SANE country) from here (whip up a pogrom).
This flinging about of buzzwords and slogans is so wokelike that it must be true about this rise of the "woke right".
Like them, you people are sick.
It seems like he gave a concise statement that is certainly reasonable on the surface. Then you attack his use of “ buzz words” . Would you prefer a different use of adjectives? Try to prop up your argument with some substance. The play you just pulled does not advance your argument. He’ll, it doesn’t even define what you are arguing for.
The flames of anti-Zionism will stand in the way of progress in any U.S. political conversation about the Middle East, Hamas, Islam, terrorism, and Zionism as a project to give the Jewish people a political state after the Holocaust.
As a Jew by birth and Christian by faith, the only explanation of the hatred and murder of Jews for the past 2000 years that makes any sense to me is that a supernatural curse did come down upon the descendants of Isaac and maybe also the descendants of Ishmael when the Pharasees said "give us Barrabas." If Jesus were not the Christ, that theory makes no sense, but if he was, the idea of such a curse in a spirit realm makes sense even if Almighty God is not acting out the curse and even if it is only as toxic as the imagination of mankind gravitates toward sin and evil.
The words "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee" remain. By those words the Christian piece of the American ideal stands.
Now amount of sleuthing will parse out the good and the bad in government application of constitutional law here if the sleuth does not comprehend the basis of faith in the JudeoChristian Scriptures.
That idea did not occur to me. My default is also God centered. I believe the Zionist are Edomites, descendants of Esau, sent into the barren mountains to eventually migrate through the regions known today as Turkey and Russia, marrying locals and later claiming to be Jews, those that lived in Judea (the tribe of Judea and perhaps Benjiman). God’s renaming of Esau and casting him out and scripture statements of God’s hate for him lead me to believe the Zionist have always been after there lost birthright and they plan to get it back. They are the banksters of the world along with men like BB. They certainly are not Israelites or Jews, just Hebrews as was Abraham.
Right on.
Thanks for this
Thanks for your words. It’s refreshing to get common sense from time to time.
Dude nobody is threatening the American Jews. Stop rending your clothes. People - including many American Jews - are criticizing the actions of a foreign Middle Eastern government. Why that’s objectionable is beyond me.
It becomes a problem when it goes beyond speech as it did on some campuses. People also notice when other countries that are committing violence are not criticized even though the numbers of deaths are much higher, methods (like chemicals) worse, etc.
Though not specific to Hamas, the US has always penalized association with designated terrorist groups. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know exactly what constitutes illegal association with terrorist groups.
In another case, if I can believe the basic facts in the reporting, Khalil Mahmoud was a leader in the Columbia group SJP that reactivated their Instagram (dormant for months) account 3 minutes before the start of the 10/7 slaughter. If correct, a bit too much coincidence.
Agree, also interesting is that he comes here, finds an American to marry and then in the process of having a kid.
No, Khalil was a spokesperson/mediator for the organization CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), NOT a "leader" of SJP.
In any club, company, government agency etc., a spokesperson is one of the leaders. Usually one of the most trusted leaders who will reliably spout the right talking poinfs.
Correct.
It was Khalil, as the leader of CUAD, who negotiated with Columbia to divest holdings from Israel.
And Joseph Goebbels was just a regular guy who merely agreed to become the spokesperson for the Nazis.
Take the time to read!
Primary source on the assertion that his organization revived their instagram a few minutes before 10/7?
Please, everyone knew the Hamas attack was coming:
timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
I would like the 10/7 files. Will they ever be released? 🤔
I want to be a country that survives with some semblance of liberal democracy for my children, and any children they might beget.
Good fucking luck USA. You 'took over a country already owned!'
Jenny, living in France, I think you should stay out of this. You and your country have enough problems as you will now be defending Ukraine.
Really? What "country" was that?
Please do inform us of what actual "country", in the modern conventional sense of a "sovereign nation" it is that you speak of. Going back through history, let's say the last 5,000 years or so, countries typically had more-or-less enforced "boundaries".
Spoiler alert: there wasn't one. There were nomadic, not incorporated groups.
Not that that in any way says they weren't living on the land, and certainly in no way is this intended to say that displacing people and not respecting them (or at least trying to) is in any way correct...just that there wasn't a "country".
Similarly, one can get into a circular analysis on your term "owned". By whom? Who was first? First dibs?
Oh please...what an old crock you're stirring
What utter nonsense.
What the fuck is Liberal Democracy?
A liberal democracy is a place where the power of the majority does not infringe on the basic rights (as in the Bill of Rights) of the minority.
As opposed to an illiberal democracy, where majorities vote to strip those they don’t agree with of their basic rights.
Real life example. After black men were emancipated, they worked to extend the franchise to women.
When women were emancipated, they immediately voted to have people incarcerated for drinking alcohol and prostitution.
A liberal vs. illiberal view of democracy.
Also, see democracy in Iraq after the gulf war, where the majority of Shia’s voted to execute the minority of Sunni’s.
A nice national playground where God is absent perhaps?
Matt, find a truly non partisan immigration lawyer, to run thru the myriad of reasons visas can be yanked. That will not be easy, because most tend to be very Progressive.
The Tufts students, and others, are possibly being removed for legal reasons, that have nothing whatsoever to do with speech. Maybe their offenses were not utilized for removal by previous administrations, but if they are infractions of valid laws, that allow for deportation, the WH can do so, if they wish.
Law school was eons ago, but I remember any falsehood on the paperwork, no matter how small, or missed deadline, was grounds to be bounced. Some visa holders and asylum applicants must report change any change of address, in a matter of days. Ditto for almost any criminal conviction. I have no idea if the public charge rule still exists, but basically you could not apply for any safety net program, no matter how small, for years after arrival. Drug use could trigger expulsion, as could any "moral turpitude".
The list is a mile long. An astute government immigration lawyer might find speech offensive, and work backwards, to find other legal grounds for revocation.
Thank you for the added detail. I'm not an attorney but admit suspecting that the "fine print" in visa applications provides amply room for the issuer of the visa for revocation if it deems the applicant to have violated good-faith agreements.
Which laws did they break? Please be specific.
I just want the Classically Liberal representative republic I grew up in, and specifically, one whose citizens believe guests of said country should comport themselves LIKE guests, or expect to be asked to leave. And like any of us (who aren't steeped in self-loathing from Pre-Ks to Post-graduates), will escort those who don't think they have to abide by common courtesy, to the doors.
Yes, a vote for SANITY!
Were liberals always this neurotic that they can't even take their own side in a fight?
Can guests of the Classically Liberal republic you grew up criticize the actions of the government of Indonesia? How about China? India? Canada? Britain? —— Why not Israel?
What kind of country do we want?
Beware the road of 'good' intentions. History divulges a 99% failure rate in the long run. Then there are 'subversive' intentions like Ted Kennedy pushing 'chain migration' as a great thing for the country.
Biden purposely opening the borders wide to flood the country and flying in 30k 'asylum' seekers a month for almost 4 years.
Who decides what a good intention is and who benefits in the long wrong?
Were you concerned enough to dive deeply into the abuses of our OWN citizens by the Biden administration and its allies?
At the risk of putting too fine a point on matters but to reply to your query, Matt has done a lot of work on issues of censorship, particularly when it appears that there were sponsors associated with the government.
Of course not!! Having the Label Democrat is a free "Get-out-of-Jail card. That is, Until now!! People are sick to death of the double standard and want their rights back!
You must be new here.
I’m not new here. I read every single post & watch every video. I’ve heard Matt simply mention, often obliquely, what’s been done to our own citizens. It’s been a perfunctory comment with no emotion or outrage. Thousands have been imprisoned for non-violent misdemeanors. No mention of the abuse they received & barely a word on how American citizens were detained for years without charge.
Even if you believe J6 was an insurrection the people involved are still Americans, and deserve due process. They were denied basic rights.
However, he immediately jumped on the proposed deportation of the non-citizen, Mahmoud Khalil. You would have thought this guy was a the male version of Mother Teresa.
I understand that Matt is having a hard time processing how corrupt his party has become. However, he is a good journalist who should be able to report equally & fairly without displaying his obvious bias. It seems as though Matt cares about one thing more than any, first amendment rights, mostly for non-citizens.
Ultimately the questions that must be asked and answered are whether those here illegally ( not merely gang members) are going to be deported ( assuming they don't sell deport) and if every deportation will require a trial ( and if such trials will allow for all the lawyering that would mean it would take decades for a meaningful number to de deported). I do not want the notion of due process to be eroded but all of this makes me wonder if Biden and mayorkas intended all along to open the flood gate for as many as possible knowing our legal system would then make it impractical to deport in large numbers.
See my comment above about Cloward-Piven, https://www.isme.in/cloward-piven-strategy-and-the-welfare-state-prof-sriram-prabhakar/. This was all by design.
More people need to be familiar with C-P
I absolutely agree with your assessment. They had a mission, flood the country and maybe it will be too Overwhelming to tackle. Because if this, my opinion, Trump is setting examples. Pretty string ones, in hopes people will self deport. And, it seems to be working. Columbia will have a new president. Schools will lose their funding. It’s only been two months .
Why wonder about facts?
And what are the facts? Or are you suggesting it is wrong to infer intentions behind actions that clearly were harmful and that have never been addressed with an apology? Since you seem to know the facts please explain why they opened the border.
Someone here illegally doesn’t require a trial before expulsion.
Now, if they’ve filed an asylum claim the precedent is that it has to be heard by a judge,
Boasberg might not agree with you and you can bet big law doesn't
Because of your history, you tend to identify more with the rights of the guests than with the rights of those who wish to set boundaries regarding who can and cannot enter their home. You are biased, and looking for evidence to support your bias. That's not journalism, Matt.
Criticized by the Left for moving to the right. Criticized by the Right for not moving far enough from the Left. Apparently, he can't please anyone.
Even assuming she did everything she was accused of, was there a trial where she was allowed to dispute evidence? Provided access to counsel? Any semblance of due process? Why’s Rubio the one speaking about this, shouldn’t it be to DoJ?
We can’t give every one of these disrupters a full trial with counsel. The dems let millions into the country. So she’s sent home, who cares? Nobody is sending her to prison. She’s not a citizen and doesn’t have a citizen’s rights.
Were you worried about the law when Biden flooded the country with 11 million illegal immigrants? This was the Cloward-Piven strategy (https://www.isme.in/cloward-piven-strategy-and-the-welfare-state-prof-sriram-prabhakar/) utilized by the Progressives to force their immigration plans on the US. The Biden administration guaranteed the system would be overwhelmed and that it would be impossible to process them all through the courts. You can whine all you want, but people like this and a whole lot more are eventually going back home.
Yes, she does. The Bill of Rights protects EVERY PERSON on US soil, not just citizens. She was arrested for writing an op-ed, which is PROTECTED SPEECH under 1A. As such, the Trump Admin is VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.
Sure we can. It doesn’t have to take months. Put the case in front of a judge, not a full jury. Set a lower bar for sufficient evidence. Record all the actions taken, evidence, presented and court proceedings. If we were worried about how much our judicial and penal systems cost us, we’d only ever lockup non-violent offenders. Governments that disregard due process in some cases disregard due process in all cases, including full citizens they’re trying to exert control over.
As Secretary of State, he can have her deported.
Then just say “We’re having her deported because she’s critical of US policy”. If State’s actually acting on its own, fine, drop the innuendo, say that they’re curtailing her speech because she’s not a citizen and not entitled to First Amendment protections. They’re just worried about optics, so they’re crafting this as-of-yet unsupported accusation of criminal actions.
State is the US institution that oversees legal immigration and processes for migrants, sets up tent cities in S. America for traveling migrants, provides directions and credit cards all through its NGOs . . . .but that was under Biden.
As I’ve stated above, if State is just acting on its own accord, the department should drop the pretense that this has anything to do with criminal actions, and just openly state that this is politically motivated. Rubio has the right to do so. No need to concoct reasons that, going by the lack of evidence presented in this and other actions the administration has taken recently, are presented without any indication that they’re actually true. Just state “foreign nationals will be deported if they’re critical of the US Government”. People here don’t seem to have much of a problem with that being the policy, it’s all done at the discretion of the State Department, no need to play make believe that this is about law and order when it’s about suppressing dissent.
That’s the real passive aggressive part, for lack of a better way of describing it.
Rather than just decide anything, jumble everything.
Both of the cease - fires in the two major wars seem to have fallen apart in much the same way. It’s always “we really tried”, while making sure it wouldn’t happen.
It’s like the whole point of the administration is PR, in certain major ways.
Yea, disappointing all 60 days of this presidency. Give me a break. Hey but eggs are down! Wasn’t everyone bitching about that ad nauseam last month? I’m not sure my brain can handle all this BS for the next 3.5 years. Attention people, we are $37 TRILLION in debt. Our country is a mess. We seem to be spending taxpayer money in every country in the world foe and friend. We need a wrecking ball. If we don’t change the course and soon, we will then truly have serious things to cry about. I say, if they hate our country go home.
If they focused a bit more and left some of the destruction wait perhaps they could actually achieve peace somewhere. They are all over the place.
“Rather than just decide anything, jumble everything. “
That pretty well sums up this administration and the previous one. I still can’t get over pardoning people presumed innocent, but that’s how things are done nowadays.
WHY did the French Revolution happen?
The Courts in France were overwhelmed......this is happening in the USA
Duh...Wasn't that Biden? In Spanish "Mala la comparasion." (Bad comparison)
Sorry, not complicated at all. I am a citizen of USA. Anyone, YES ANYONE, who entered this country illegally is AN ILLEGAL ALIEN! These people who entered this country BROKE THE LAW, in my mind are eligible for deportation. Before the self righteous among you flip out, I say this knowing my former son in law, father of my grand daughter is an illegal. He and his family are here illegally, they do work BUT DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES! They do however get gov't benefits from food stamps to healthcare. This is more than likely the case for 95% (or more) of the illegals in our country. MY(OUR) taxes are going to people that are underserving. They clog our schools, hospitals, roads, stores etc. take jobs from citizens.
I for one do not care what "The Trump administration "believed. That belief is hardly grounded in the law. It is based on what is expedient. This same BS happened with Reagan, gave amnesty and pathway to citizenship in exchange for legislation that never came. If we don't stand for rule of law now, we are sunk.
I keep hearing about these numerous court cases brought by Democrats and leftist groups and "standing" in the case. I did not have standing when Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkis and the Democrats opened up the Southern Border(actually all borders) and allowed anyone, everyone come into MY COUNTRY!!
It is time to stop this leftist ," worried about democracy " "it is complicated", "enjoy constitutional protections", hyperbolic crybaby Bullshit!!
Matt, your holier than thou, righteous rhetoric has worn thin for me. I am 65yrs old, watched my cost of living increase., safety of my country die, why don't you fight the REAL FIGHT IN FRONT OF US, if what you perceive "MIGHT HAPPEN" come true, be a Paul Revere then. We have a very limited time to clean up the mess your Democrat Party and Joe Biden created. Fight the Fight Before Us, not the one you perceive may be.
They could try sticking to the constitution and not trying to circumvent is obscure ways.
I applaud your wanting to get to the truth, but it sure seems that a lot of your subscribers believe that no one in the US on a student visa has any constitutionally protected speech. Not to protest US policy or the policies of another country. Maybe they’re right. Who knows? So determining the nature and extent of the speech that leads to your deportation is interesting but of no import.
Just come here, pay your tuition, keep your head down and your mouth shut, get your degree and either leave or apply for green card status which also affords you no free speech rights of any kind despite your green card earnings being taxed.
"apply for green card status which also affords you no free speech rights of any kind despite your green card earnings being taxed." -- EVERYONE on US soil is protected by the Bill of Rights. Research better.
Was being sarcastic
That is true about it being a question of what kind of country we want to be. Part of that is we should all -Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, progressive, conservative, moderate and in between - should demand that our AWOL Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform. Presidents and judges should not be deciding who comes or who stays. But when one exploits the existing law the next one cannot be faulted for reining that in.
True, but some of what has been reported goes far beyond just asking guests to leave. The problem is I can't trust any of the sources of the reports so I view them with heavy skepticism. I hope Matt and his crew can find some clarity on the current immigration/guest/visa/ICE landscape so we can judge the Admin's actions by facts, not partisan narratives and propaganda campaigns.
Matt and other investigative journalist digging in to determine the facts is critical, and it’s also critical to understand the complex and nuanced legal framework that applies to immigrants.
Its called Constitution and the rule of Law, not complex or nuanced.
💯
We all have biases, but Matt is clearly committed to an open process that curates objective facts from first hand sources. So the short answer in trying to establish the ground truth of the situation he is open to discovering where he has been wrong and disclosing that as well.
NO. Matt's not wrong. He is 1st a Journalist seeking truth. But you Americans don' want truth. WHY?
You are hanging on by your fingernails USA with the British close behind.
Europe (which is where I live) is disintegrating....FAST.
The WEST WHITE people want to stay in charge. SCREW YOU ALL.
You have waged your was on poor countries MOSTLY brown or black.
Instead of encouraging: You subvert!
Jenny,
What Truth? The Truth that our country was purposely invaded by people who we know NOTHING ABOUT? The British are failing
On Free Speech, this is not free speech, it is about a sovereign PEOPLE, not wanting ILLEGAL ALIENS allowed into their country by a Democrat president who would not uphold the rule of law.
EVERYONE is biased. That includes you. So then do the sit down on our hands and say nothing about anything because we are biased?
And the idea that we don't have enough homegrown radicals (of all stripes) that we find it necessary to import more seems delusional.
The bill of rights does not specify anywhere that it applies to “citizens.” It just uses the words “person” and “people.”
SCOTUS has blurred the line a bit when it comes to free speech. It doesn’t say that visa-holders have no free speech rights. It does say that regardless of these rights, the Executive Branch can deport the vis-holders if their free-speech endangers the country or its foreign policy.
Which, of course, raises two question …(1) Does the free-speech have to actually, objectively harm our foreign policy? Or can the administration just subjectively claim it does to shut down dissent?…AND… (2) To what extent do the 5th and 14th amendment due process rights (which, again, apply to “persons” and not “citizens”) have to be followed?
Your comment zeros in on the key points: the parties covered by the law and the extent to which they are covered. Thank you for raising the issue.
I'll add my thoughts:
The United States of America (US) is a sovereign nation -- to the degree to which one acknowledges the existence of sovereign nations (for the record -- I do).
The extent to which any laws governing the US apply to an individual are demarcated by the extent to which US law applies. This is somewhat circular-sounding but laws, protections, guarantees or other grants or restrictions can only apply to covered parties to, over or for whom the US government can claim authority or otherwise address.
As such, it would seem that law, here specifically US law, can only apply to those bound by US law by "membership" -- and thus to citizens.
So while the Bill of Rights or the Constitution might not address citizens directly and just refer to "persons", one could argue there are no other parties to which it holds or can be enforced. That is, the rights established in the Constitution and enforced by the US Government apply to citizens as citizens of the US are the only persons who fall in the "scope" of US law.
Then, one could specify to what degree visitors to the US -- people admitted to the US but not legally citizens -- enjoy those rights are protections.
Thanks again for bringing up the point.
Actually, I'm going to quibble about my quibbling!
The extent of the application of US law is the geographic region where it applies.
Then the primary group to which is applies would be US citizens.
To people who want to enter the country but are not US citizens, further restrictions can be applied. These are presumably identified in the visa application.
Thus, a person in the last group, non-citizen admitted to the US but under the conditions of the visa application, gets to enjoy the benefits guaranteed by the US constitution so long as their presence is legal and they do not violate the conditions of the visa agreement.
I-485 is form to acquire Green Card, Section 9 contains the questions pertinent to whether the applicant is approved and eventually can become a citizen. I recommend downloading and reading the questions to help the curious decide for themselves
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf
Hi
Do you realize that the "Bill of Rights" are the amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are not a Stand Alone document.
Yes this administration IS wrong in continuing to support Isreal with weapons to kill more Palestinians AND to arrest people voicing concern over the GENOCIDE we are complicit in , in Gaza.!
non-citizens are persons.
No one said they weren’t, and that comment does nothing to illuminate the complex situation.
the 1st and 14 amendments refer to people and persons. Perhaps non-citizens are not has much of a person than former slaves?
but have different rights and obligations. it's all in the paperwork they have to sign and swear to.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf
Download the I-485 application for Green Card Review Section 9 which has questions/possible answers pertinent to discussions
looks like 43.h, 43.i, 44 and 45 are the nub here. i guess like w so much of law, if a prosecutor or other govt official wants to apply this to you, they can at least try.
Thanks for the link.
I don’t think there is a special “guest” constitution. There is only one.
I am fully onboard board with expelling someone who commits vandalism or assault or even gets a DUI or disorderly persons conviction. I don’t think that being present at a demonstration where vandalism happens is enough, unless there is evidence you helped plan or direct the vandalism.
As for giving aid to terrorist groups- yes that is certainly a legitimate reason for expulsion, but there needs to be evidence and due process. There are certainly Iranian and Hamas operatives here in the US directly working for enemy groups (some of whom crossed the border illegally). We should go after those people and groups relentlessly not waste our time on students protesting against Israel and Gaza but not committing or plotting violence nor directly linked to Hamas. There are other priorities. Stopping campus violence against Jews is one of those priorities but the majority of violent protestors seem to be American as far as I can tell. Make arrests for vandalism and disorderly persons. If a foreigner is charged and convicted, expel them.
Of course, if we had foreign students harassing gays or African-American students on campus they would have been expelled or harshly prosecuted under Biden. No doubt.
I’ve spent time in places like HK and Turkey when there are protests and as a foreigner I avoid them, and I don’t sign petitions, donate funds or even buy t-shirts. I know I can be summarily expelled (or prosecuted) just for being in the proximity of anti-gov protests, or really for any reason at all. I remember being assigned a communist party “minder” in Vietnam because we were asking locals too many questions about a recent environmental disaster. I don’t want America to become like those places. Tourists and visa holders are entitled to free speech
and due process, IMO.
Yes and thank you! Using the word “guests” shines a clarifying light on these “rights” questions !!
Can you direct me to the special “guest” constitution?
Regardless of political affiliations, our citizens have been conditioned to be completely polarized, assuming every decision made/action taken by anyone in government is politically motivated.
Congratulations to everyone in MSM (Fox, I’m looking at you too). The term “useful idiots” could never fit anyone more completely.
I wonder if what is taking place in Europe is what is causing the changes. I have friends in various spots in Europe, and the UK, France, and Germany are seeing particular issues right now. I have talked to a few people that believe Islam will be the dominant religion in the UK within the decade, and that it's being set up that way.
My friend in France had been sending me pictures of the streets of Paris for some time (places that I was at) with the encampments, and how things were changing, but about 3 years ago stopped for fear for his family and who was watching what he was doing. This is a guy that flew a drone around Dubai, so not exactly someone afraid of authority....
Germany is beginning to be like those were, but I honestly don't have as close a ties to the people I know there.
This is what the real rulers of the world want. We westerners got too close to them so they have to shut us down, so they are flooding us with the most radical people on earth. The truly interesting thing is that they think they can control them, or.. perhaps they know something none of us know and know they won't need to control them for long....
GO ahead USA with your politics in the USA.
China will 'sweep up' your so-called dissidents.
YOU seem to forget your roots USA.
You took over a Country already owned by indiginous Indians/ Mexicans.
NOT dissimalar to the Palestinians?
YOU Americans are existing because of RACISM.
I do not forget how the Europeans ....fleeing from religious persecutions.
YOU are not a 'race!'
You are NOTHING
You must refrain from putting your brain in “ time out” for extended periods of time. It’s most unbecoming to a European intellectual, such as yourself. A note from the colonies…..
Jenny, take a breath.
Will you stop with this nonsense?
America was NOT "already owned by indigenous Indians/Mexicans."
There were many tribes here in America, with varying notions of what their own territories were, and they regularly encroached on the territories of other tribes.
They also practiced slavery & torture, just like the European conquerors did.
You sound like a RACIST, who hates white people.
While the actions of the US government against native tribes was unconscionable, it was nothing new. This is human history, whenever a larger, more powerful group encountered a smaller, less powerful group, the larger group took over. That's it.
That is human history, whether you like it or not.
YOU have to be completely stupid to write this comment.
Guests: How dare you.
The brightest minds in Europe taught YOU.
You were a colony that wiped out your indigenous population.
ALL YOU ARE is a colony of the British/European state.
You have absolutely nothing that other countries need.
Thanks for this, Matt. Glad I support you. The thing that is getting missed in this is that basically these students are here for their own Color Revolution inside the US. They don't have any particularly valid or insightful information to add to the debate. They're either a.) caught up in hellraising, or b.) sent here deliberately. It will be interesting to read what you find out. Our MSM is committed to the Color Revolution. We can't expect any meaningful insight from them.
What’s funny is that a color revolution within our own country is stupid, but some defense of people of color being engaged in these wars is very appropriate yet not allowed. Discussing what’s going on between Israel and Palestine is not really a color revolution. Is it?
Not only is it not a “color revolution”, whatever that may be, it’s also not a political issue. Of course race and politics imbue every aspect of our lives, but it’s far more useful to understand that Gaza is being completely destroyed, and its inhabitants wantonly murdered. It is Genocide, and Genocide is not a political act, it’s a purely criminal one.
Every citizen should support peaceful, intelligent, and sincere efforts to bring an end to this monstrous tragedy whatever their nationality or ethnicity.
The only “genocide” in history where if all the hostages were released and terrorists surrendered, it would end tomorrow. But yes, keep promoting your “peaceful” efforts and vilifying Israel aka Jewish people with your blood libels. It’s too bad you weren’t born in the 1930s, you would have been so at home in Nazi Germany. I know I know, it’s just a “coincidence” that you also seem to hate the same people that the Nazis hated, Jewish people. Sorry sorry, “Israel”! Not Jewish people. This has nothing to do with Jewish people. Got it!
"vilifying Israel aka Jewish people" -- Stop being dishonest by conflating the two. You know full well that criticizing a country's GOVERNMENT is NOT the same as being against its PEOPLE. Enough with the hasbara.
Homie try to keep up with the situation. Israel doesn't care about the hostages, and releasing them would not put an end to anything, only surrender Hamas' only bargaining chip. Israel doesn't care about the Israeli hostages so much that they have actually killed many of them themselves, by bombing locations where the hostages were known to be. The Bibas kids were casualties in this fashion. Israel was also fully aware the Oct 7th attack was going to take place, and allowed it so that they finally had a convenient pretext to genocide/ethnic cleanse the pesky Palestinians away from where they wanted to build more. These are all a matter of public fact. Every relevant governing world body has described Israel's actions as war crimes, but if you insist on rooting for the bad guys, at least deal with correct observations.
Actually, you’re close, it was my grandfather who was at home in Nazi Germany. At home, that is, until the Nazis worked him to death in a camp. Arbeit macht frei.
You have no idea who you’re talking to, or what you’re saying, so let me give you a brief outline of what Israel looked like to another Jewish man:
“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”~Albert Einstein
You don't seem to know what a 'color revolution' is.
You don't know what a 'color revolution' is.
Or c) They believe strongly enough in a GLOBAL cause to advocate for it.
Same! I really appreciate that you are covering this so diligently Matt, we need your expertise on this one. Free speech is your beat, and many of these cases sound like speech issues to me.
One of the many reasons I’m more than happy to give Matt 50 bucks a year: we live in an age of conflation where nuance is vital and portraits are painted with broad strokes. If I care about the first amendment, I have to be willing to submit my opinions to the rule of law, regardless of who my president is. Being disgusted by someone’s first amendment activity is not enough.
Having said that, what’s abundantly clear is that some Chinese students have been friendly with the CCP and worse, likely proxies, grabbing vital research for years. That has to stop from a standpoint of national security.
So, to me what’s unanswered is the possibility that these individuals were compensated for their ‘politics’. If you are trying to figure out the paymasters, is this how you go about it? I have no idea, it just comes to the top of my mind when I see this behavior.
Great point. Not just are they being paid, but who is footing their bills? Many are from nations that are overwhelmingly impoverished, and it is my understanding financial aid is not available to non American citizens. So who is paying the $70K a year bill, for some of these young people to attend some of the most expensive colleges in the world, in some of the most expensive cities in the world?
Perhaps their families are picking up the tabs, but it would be interesting to know, from where the money is derived. The public charge rule makes it illegal for them to utilize the US safety net, for their first 5 years, if not longer.
Good point. I’ve always wondered how the “ thanks for participating “ funds reach the participants without detection.Its got to be some elaborate trickle down maze….
Books, speeches, posts, NGOs—there’s many ways money is laundered nowadays.
This calls for “ forensic accountants “… they know where to find hidden $…. Ask my ex husband……
these are very commonplace politics. It’s a very very large group of people who are opposed to our foreign policy activity. So why would they need to be paid?
In fact, a great deal of Trump’s mandate was anti-war. We just left that little Israel war loophole slipped through. We ignored it, and hoped for the best.
It’s look like we’re getting the worst.
The terror attack in Yemen three days ago was a shocking reversal of Trump’s expressed desire to make peace. He seems to be completely bought by the Israel Lobby. It’s time to confront this directly.
After the blunt force trauma inflicted on the American psyche by the DNC I hoped Trump would bring an even handed calm to American politics and begin to move We the People toward the healthy national conversation and change our Republic so desperately needs. President Trump meeting the aftermath of polarizing MSM TDS hysteria with more "who knows what the truth is" sideshow theatrics isn't helping the nation or the citizen. Likewise, the administrations over reaction and willingness to ignore DUE PROCESS for the sake of faux p.c. propaganda points plunges average Americans back into the twisting in emotional space political black hole we hoped to escape. "Everything means everything so nothing means anything."
SUBSCRIPTION JOURNALISM now more than ever!!
When you think about physics and nature, we are so far from reasonable that I begin to understand Judge Roy Bean during taming the Wild West.
We definitely need clarity on these issues because we're not getting any from the mainstream media. It's why I don't believe anything they say without it be corroborated by independent media. (This is also the same philosophy I have when someone goes off based on selective reporting that a cop shot someone without provocation, etc. -- let's see the evidence and investigation and then make the decision. Case in point: Ferguson.)
I don't think anyone should have their visa revoked because of something they said, but visas are not "you get to say and do anything you want" cards. They are still guests of our country and if they engage in activities that are anti-American or they commit a crime -- even a misdemeanor-- I don't have a problem pulling their visas. I would like clarity on how these laws work, though, because I honestly don't know.
I think maybe we should lean towards having a problem with pulling their visas? Because if we start with not having a problem with it, then they give us just enough information for us to justify it. You kind of see how that works?
We think it through carefully and humanely, they think on how to exploit our thoughts .
I believe in legal immigration, I just think our system is broken. I also think student visas are terrific and we should have people from all over the world participate in our education system -- but not for the purpose of tearing down our country. (Of course, I think there is a lot of reasons why this is possible based on the problems in many of our high education programs.) I think you're right that we need to be careful and humane, and many of these people are exploitive. That said, we should make it standard to pull visas of those who violate the rules of their entry -- like I said, a visa isn't a "do whatever you want" card. .... I know a LOT of immigrants who became citizens. One of my son's closest friends is a Russian-American, his parents came over here 30+ years ago because they had little freedom and no chance of economic prosperity. The dad has a major job contributing to society, and their whole family is very pro-America. My old next door neighbors came from Vietnam. They had an American flag on their door and what they lived through is nothing that most of us understand. They had an anniversary party for when they became citizens. Some immigrants don't value American values -- some value them more than even some of our citizens. As a sovereign nation, I think we can and should pick and choose who gets to become Americans.
Our country has not done well with the whole “if we think you say or think anti-American stuff you lose your rights” thing. Alien & Sedition Acts, WW2 internment, McCarthyism, the various trumped-up charges MLK was arrested for, etc., etc.
No, obviously I don't believe that. I'm sorry if that's how I came across. I'm talking about individuals coming to our country on student visas then through their ACTIONS should have their visas revoked.
The far left has always been opposed to free speech (and the far right, i.e. McCarthyism) -- when I was in college (UC Santa Cruz) I was editor of the alternative conservative newspaper. It was a monthly newsmagazine format and we raised money from businesses in the community to public. We'd put our copies where the campus allowed free publications to be left, and then witnessed people going around, collecting our magazine, and throwing them away. It was an important lesson for me at 19.
My problem is when people come to this country as guests and then work to undermine our institutions, NOT through their words, but through their actions. And that's why I don't have a problem revoking visas when warranted. But like I said -- I don't know what the law is on student visas. A student from a foreign country is a lot different than an American citizen chanting anti-American things.
Agree
I’m a former newspaper publisher, and care deeply about free speech. But when it comes to these activists, (students from authoritarian states on visas) being deported, I’m really struggling to find the F***s to care about them. Currently it’s a zero. They’ve deliberately come here to exploit our freedoms and American project only to undermine it. They would never ever reciprocate by giving us the same freedoms if they were in charge. Unlike real hostages and kidnapped, these dopes will be repatriated to their countries and be just fine. It pains me to no end that we are making martyrs and heroes out of them. Change my mind.
It's difficult to change a mind that's full of nothing but speculation.
Uh, speculation? Gosh, and I thought the lady was giving opinion based on observations.
Please, quote the part(s) of her comment that describe her direct observations of factual events, rather than being just opinions/speculations/predictions.
Matt
First things first. If you are granted a visa to study in the U.S, does that give you the same rights as an American citizen? What are the parameters of a student visa? If on your application you say it is for educational purposes, and you get arrested or thrown out of school, is at that point you have voided your contract, and asked to leave? So many questions Matt, and before we address free speech issues, you must lay the groundwork for just what the responsibilities of the visa holder are.
Your work on free speech issues is second to none, and I support you 100 percent.
Personally, my view is that these students should be allowed speech, but as soon as you have campus demonstrations, harassment of fellow students, take overs of campus buildings, and vandalism, it’s game over.
Thanks for all you do Matt
Kahil came here on a student visa to get his graduate degree. He graduated, yet stayed in campus housing and continued to protest. He was dishonest on his applications as he worked in Gaza. Palestinian relief work. Intern possibly, but he worked there for months. I thought he was working on his graduate degree? He graduated in December 2024, yet he worked in Gaza from June through November. Hmm. Call me a skeptic, my husband does all the time. But, sorry folks I’m not buying his story.
if what the non-citizens are saying is correct, wouldn’t they just be against citizens who say it too?
Go after one before you can go after the other?
Unfortunately, trusting a lawyer whose purpose is for their client, may also just provide junk
As I understand the regulation of INS (or whatever it's called now) for foreign nationals living in the U.S., "espousing support for a USG-designated terrorist organization and/or encouraging others to do so" is grounds for deportation. Hamas is a USG-designated terrorist organization. Ozturk may have done this. In the famous case of Mahmoud Khalil, he certainly did this (Hamas). Hezbollah is a USG-designated terrorist organizaiton: In the case of Aliwieh, she was barred from reentry because material supporting Hezbollah was found on her iphone, and she'd just attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah in Beirut. In the famous case of Suri, he failed to note on his application for a student visa that his father-in-law was an advisor of the leader of Hamas. That's visa fraud.
I think that what's going on is that little of this--these regulations-- were being enforced under Biden. But they are being ruthlessly enforced under ferocious Trump.
Kick the criminals out
Matt, the previous Trump administration didn’t have 10/7. Students on college campuses weren’t encamped, wearing the keffiyeh, the uniform of Hamas, and screaming for the end of the West. Intimidating Jews and attacking them in cities around the world and protesting exactly at the point 10/7 was happening was not something anyone would have considered could happen.
It is naive in the extreme to imagine Islam is not on its Long March to a caliphate and they’re using our open societies to accomplish their goals. Khalil wouldn’t deny it if he were honest, he’s proud of what he’s doing, he’s serving his people and Allah. People need to understand the West is the enemy of the stated mission of Islam. We are the devils who need to revert (not convert, Islam believes we’re all born Muslims) be enslaved or be killed.
Neither Khalil nor Ozturk will care, or be allowed to care, about you or your children when islam gets a foothold because you stuck up for their free speech. There won’t be any free speech anyway. In fact having lived in a country where there were no human rights, as I have too, you need to have eyes wide open and know your honorable intentions are jeopardizing your family and mine in the future. But perhaps you believe protecting Khalil’s or Ozturk’s rights trump these fears. OK, but don’t be blind to the danger then. Know you’re helping to plant the seeds of having all our freedoms lost.
Some will accuse me of hyperbole and exaggeration, maybe even you, Matt. But after living and working in the strictest country in the Middle East for ten years, and knowing firsthand the fervor of Islam, I can say with sincerity this is no exaggeration. Many good Muslims would back me up on this. Many decent Muslims are as terrified of the Khalils and Ozturks of the world and how they’re being used as many of us are in the West.
I just hope in ten or twenty years time we don’t have to look back and say with terrible regret, what were we thinking, how could this have happened? Just as we do with the Holocaust.
Are Khalil's record and Ozturk's the same, though?
We know a lot about what he did—he was public about his activism and there's lots of footage—but almost nothing is in the public record about what she did, other than her friends' and her attorney's statements and what Secy Rubio has said.
Legal noncitizen residents do have some first amendment rights. If the scope of those constitutional rights is BROADER than sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, then parts of the Act could be found unconstitutional, as applied to the facts of Ozturk's case. Don't believe there’s much case law on this.
As well, we citizens also have a first amendment right to hear and read what legal residents say and write while they are in the U.S.—the first amendment protects the right to receive information. (See Twitter files.)
If all Ozturk did was coauthor an op-ed, then she's in a different position from Khalil. Hers would present a first amendment case.
I was a green card holder for almost three decades. I faithfully followed all protocols as do millions of green card holders, for fear I would lose that precious privilege. You certainly cannot be complicit in sedition. If you’re supporting a named terrorist organization as a natural citizen you will be in hot water. If you’re here as a guest, you could, and perhaps should be repatriated to where you came from if you are suspected of sedition. You broke the contract you signed. It’s not a right to be here, it’s an earned privilege.
Thanks for your reply. And, I’m betting, a contribution to our country
Thank you I hope I’ve contributed to this amazing experiment that’s America, it’s unique in the world. Beautiful, even with all its flaws.
I have lived in a couple of spiritually dark places. Oppression comes in many forms religious and otherwise, such as communism or heavy handed socialism. Of course the oppression is almost always carried out with the best of intentions. Just as Khalil and Ozturk and all the misguided supporters of Iran and its proxies believe what they’re doing is for the greater good.
However, I prefer my family not to be a victim of their good intentions.
My father lived and worked in Da’Haran for 10 years. My Mom for about 3. It was like living in hell for western women.
I'm not concerned about my rights as a citizen being extended to people who aren't citizens.
you might want to consider that it’s not a matter than being non-citizens it’s a matter of whether or not what they’re saying is right or wrong for the rest of the citizens here. You’re not considering it by not mentioning it.
If you let government agents determine what's "helpful" speech you're well on your way to authoritarianism. Free speech includes speech that people dislike.
I will be following your reporting on this very closely.
I was hoping that Walter had dissuaded Matt from falling for this hostage puppy scam.