a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you is a terrible guest. Most likely you would call the cops to drag the offender from your home. Rubio is correct. These people are visitors and should demonstrate their admiration for our political rights rather than assuming they currently possess them.
"a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you AS YOU MURDER THEIR FAMILY TO STEAL THEIR LAND is a terrible guest."
Take notice , two brain cells, if you are here also on a visa we be looking for you! If not then you do have the right as a US citizen to peacefully gather and protest any action the US Gov. takes. You do understand the peacefully part . If not then you are subject to the laws of the USA . After 250 years one would think the likes of you , and especially visa , greencard holders AND illegals would understand the , now tks to President Trump, consequences of your actions! Even if you are intelligent enough to be allowed into the USA to pursue a college education does not give you any extra rights to then turn around and criticize the USA via such actions that you take.
"Free speech is for people I agree with!" wept Titania McGrath as she sat down to a big bowl of KarenFlakes gently moistened with her melted snowflake tears.
"People should be free to say what they want, as long as I agree with it!" she thought, as the ghost of Stalin smiled approvingly.
Or just too plain stupid to consider that such a flimsy and ridiculous standard could be used against their favorite green card holder, visa holder, or just any foreign visitor after the next regime change in Washington.
I asked for sources other than second-hand info. These are all biased sources of info. In fact, save the children's methodology was debunked because they were just taking random people and asking if they'd been "victims" while at the same time giving out cash and, of course, people feel like they need to give something for the money so they embellish. NONE of the "stories" were ever verified. Furthermore, Save the Children has given millions to lobbyists and politicians - face it, they're grifters. As for the rest, they're all leftwing/pro-palestinian sources, so of course they're going to spew disinformation. Which of these publications actually documented killings of Israeli children by Hamas and the other terrorists? None.
Many of your sources have a hatred bias. I'm sorry if this is the first you're hearing of it. I wonder how many of these had much to say on 10/7. I bet very few. I bet most haven't commented about the hostages. I bet only 1 or 2 commented about the recent Palestinian protests against Hamas and how those that participated are being killed by Hamas as we speak.
You do know that Hamas' goal is to establish a caliphate, right? Well, that and murdering anyone they see as an infidel (kafir). Which is likely you. And definitely me. Also, gay people. And a lot of Arabs.
But I'm sure you know all this. Because you're so well read and researched.
Do you have a magic eight-ball full of nastiness that you rely n for your posts? You make no sense.
And do recall, Hamas killed babies, cooked them in microwaves, let them die as hostages, raped women, killed women, killed women while raping them, etc. Israel retaliated to an extremely violent provocation by Hamas. Hamas is to blame.
We’ll put you down as a cheerleader for terrorists.
Every human is descended from those whose land was "stolen". Every human is descended from someone who stole land. At some point you have to decide if the "struggle" is going to pay off and worth the cost (both to you and to your enemy). We romanticize the struggle because it is shown in movies and in order to get people to like those movies, the struggle pays off in the end. Human history shows that this is more often NOT the case. Most of us are completely unaware of these decisions by our ancestors.
So you are going to argue that, because in ancient societies lands were "stolen" by or from our ancestors, that somehow "justifies" the wanton violation of international law in 2025, agreed to by the US and all the countries that are UN members? In other words, ancient "law" supersedes and "justifies" the wanton violation of modern law? You want to erase the past 10,000 years of the development of human civilization to justify the utterly unjustifiable genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel? Is that really your argument?
It’s so interesting to watch the Trumpers on here argue for Israel the same way the blue MAGAs argue for Ukraine. The victims of both are officially unworthy and so not human.
They’re both impossible to try to reach with factual evidence. They don’t have any use for it. They’ve internalized their side of the debate and they’re sticking to it no matter what. They mirror each other.
I agree with the first paragraph of your statement but not the second. Many people “right” and “left” are being drawn by the intensity of real-world events into political debate for the first time in their lives and are trying to quickly get up to speed with those of us who have been political animals for decades. It’s our duty as socialists to try to educate our fellow workers who find themselves initially bogged down in the Republicrat swamp and are struggling against the lies being told to them by the US capitalist class’ bought-and-paid-for Democrat and Republican politicians.
Trust me. I continue to attempt to come up with different approaches to break through the wall of resistance to new information. Cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack.
I do not believe that any honest worker - who is temporarily confused by the endless lies of the US capitalist class, their news media and their lying Republicrats - is “impossible to reach”. It’s our duty to “reach” them and help them understand what’s really going on.
In this particular situation, Islam has been committing genocide against all other people and taking their cities and lands, for fifteen centuries. The atrocities in Syria, Gaza, and across Africa show they are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.
The Jewish people are doing the same thing they’ve been doing since David & Goliath & the Philistines. They are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.
It is not different among other nations, Russia for example, America for example, Mexico for example, China for example.
Ask the Chinese, the Africans, the Indian subcontinent what they think about Islamic expansion. Like bangladesh, pakistan and much of afghanistan all of which were Indian lands from time immemorial. Ask them about the Hindu Kush mountains and what that name actually means.
The Israeli theft occurred under the current international order. Unless Israel's existence statehood is dissolved, the current order is dissolved. All Israelis whose families did not live in Palestine before 1900 should be considered for deportation.
Yes. I think a person who isn't a worthless piece of shit would say that human rights supercede land rights, but this forum seems to be full of stalinists.
Well, shucks and every human is descended from those who tortured or were tortured. Just one of those things that people do to one another. Electricity has reduced the visible signs so it's even more insidious. Mostly hearsay, he said, she said kind of thing. Time marches on and barbarism is still tolerated and even excused.
Israel did not murder Gazans. Israel killed Gazans in a war of Gaza's choosing, since Hamas was Gaza's government as well as a terrorist group.
Israel did not steal "Palestinian" land. It won the lands popularly known as Gaza and West Bank legally and fairly after winning two wars--1948 and 1967--waged against it by Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. And in fact it gave Gaza back to Gazans twenty years ago after pulling out every single Jew and relocating every single Jewish grave. Gaza was Jew-free for years, but Hamas decided Jew-free wasn't good enough, Israel had to be Jew-free too. Thus this war.
Genocide? Bullshit. Israel had the capability to kill all 2 million Gazans on the same day if it wanted. It chose instead to slog building by building for almost two years now, putting thousands of its soldiers at risk instead of bombing Gaza with thermobaric weapons, which would have turned all 2 million Gazans into ash for bulldozing into the Med. It did no such thing.
You don't like dead Palestinians. Fine. I don't either. The solution to that is for Hamas to quit murdering Israelis. Without that October pogrom, Israel would not have fired a shot into Gaza.
I didn't make anything up to be smarter than you. Get back to me when you learn the history of Palestine, which officially became the State of Israel in 1948, both legally and morally.
Arrogant and "borish"? Geez, lady, you claimed I'm "making shit up to feel smarter than anyone else here." If you can't handle pushback, don't insult me to start with.
I didn't say anything about WWII. I said the founding of Israel was moral as well as legal, because it was.
I guess with all the Karl Marx reading you're doing at the encampment, there are only so many hours in a day. Enjoy the drum circle and catered dinner!
Our country welcomes anyone who comes to America & resides in peace. However, when someone comes here, who hates Jews (or Christians), I am very offended. When foreign Arab students & guest professors are here on a temporary visa, and reside in our universities, there is usually a reason.
The majority have little interest in learning math or science. Frequently, they are focused on our connection with Israel & the Jews. They want to influence our foreign policy through the universities. Meanwhile, they disrupt our own citizens daily lives & make them fearful. They aren’t just expressing their political beliefs. At times, we feel the hate they emanate.
I hate to jump to conclusions but it appears that those who are vigorously defending the pro-Palestinian Arabs “rights” are just a wee bit antisemetic. I’d prefer to defend our own Jewish citizens rather than foreigners who disrupt our society.
Yes and no. As Justice Robert Jackson famously observed, "our Constitution is not a suicide pact." Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? Or Soviet students demonstrating for communism? A student visa is a privilege, not a right. And Hamas is a terrorist organization that raped and murdered innocents, and held hostage and brutalized Americans.
Do you know that Jackson's quote is from his minority (losing) opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)?
He wanted to uphold a Chicago ordinance that punished speech "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance." Sounds like cancel culture or something the UK uses to arrest people complaining about school administration.
Maybe you should catch up on Constitutional Law before you comment on it.
Maybe you should read Jackson's intelligent dissent before you spout off.
You minimize the facts and ignore Jackson's wisdom that: "Because a subject is legally arguable, however, does not mean that public sentiment will be patient of its advocacy at all times and in all manners. So it happens that, while peaceful advocacy of communism or fascism is tolerated by the law, both of these doctrines arouse passionate reactions. A great number of people do not agree that introduction to America of communism or fascism is even debatable. Hence many speeches, such as that of Terminiello, may be legally permissible but may nevertheless in some surroundings be a menace to peace and order. When conditions show the speaker that this is the case, as it did here, there certainly comes a point beyond which he cannot indulge in provocations to violence without being answerable to society."
I'm sure most sane people agree that: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
You realize that the arguments in favor of "cancel culture" on campus were the same - "we have to cancel this speech because it will cause disorder." It's also used as a justification for the censorship seen in The Twitter Files.
Are you this foolish in real life? I am hardly an authoritarian and believe that any American has the right to believe and say whatever he or she wants. But speech has been recognized in extreme cases to cross the line in incite to violence or riot and even you must recognize that as do most state criminal codes. And if foreign students organize campus riots, destruction or deprivation of the rights of American students based solely on their religion, they have no business studying at an American university
You are aware of the fact that minority opinions in Supreme Court cases carry absolutely zero legal weight, right? What kind of legal point can be made by citing a minority opinion in ANY Supreme Court case?
What the heck are you babbling about? Jackson's quote is well known and cited. And minority opinions often later become majority opinions. Chevron, anyone? Not to mention many others.
"Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? "
Of course we DID. The German Bund, including some students openly supported Hitler and NAZIism up until WWII started. SCOTUS ruled that American NAZIs had Freedom of Speech and could parade through Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors). They never did, but the ruling showed that Hate Speech= Free Speech (as long as the line to imminent violence is not crossed).
The US is not at War with Hamas (may even be selling them weapons); we recently made al-Julani (TERRORIST HEADCHOPPER leader of one of the ISIS offshoots, the CIA's armies) the Head of Syria.
As Taibbi and JD Vance made clear America has different values from Europe (and from Israel). Americans have (or had) essential liberties enshrined in the Constitution. We are (were) not afraid of people speaking up and dissenting from official narratives handed down from the federal government (Covid killed that). If we were officially at war with Hamas, arguably Hamas supporters should be deported. But we are not yet a Police State like Israel, though we seem to be headed that way, a slippery slope, since the Patriot Act.
Hamas held Americans citizens captive. And SCOTUS did not ever rule on the rights of foreign nationals to espouse their causes when we were at war with them. The Bund rallies pre-dated the war and Skokie was after it. And btw that war was the last one declared. Not happy with that but doesn't change the facts. Try a bit harder to make your point cogently. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We routinely target terrorists.
And let’s not forget where all of this has led over the last few years. Taking over public spaces, destruction of school property, extreme harassment of students if they disagree. Is it really that hard to show some humility and gratitude toward a country that has welcomed you? This is a difficult line to draw but when “opinions” lead to harassment and bullying and violence - and we’ve seen this happening frequently on campuses in recent years - then what’s to be done?
We are supposed to believe that when speech alone is not persuasive enough to get them what they want, they also have the right to harass, intimidate, and demand attention. It’s all free speech, right?
Hey, change-my-handle-so-I-can-escape-my-own-foolish-expressions, what this Substack has are a lot of folks with brains and a few vs with their dicks in their hands. You can leave any time. We are sticking around so that truth prevails.
It’s amazing that some here don’t see that our freedoms were in jeopardy after 12 years of Obama & Biden. Even when they read about the abuses & lies nothing changes in their minds. The civil rights of our own citizens were violated & the abuses were mind-numbing, but the only thing that bothers them is deporting non-citizens, who disrupt our own people.
NO they don't . The Constitution protects the God given rights of US Citizens from the gov. or others. Especially the protection from Government. I suggest you read and reread the Constitution until you , if your are capable, understand what it means. Plus add the Federalist Papers to the reading list in order to understand further of how the Founding Fathers hashed out the final writing of the Constitution. Sad you and the likes of you think you now know better than the Founding Fathers who brought about the Greatest Nation the World has ever known even if we are only 250 years old. We will be lucky , with the likes of you , to last as long as the Romans did.
Such unnecessary nastiness. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case, and the extent to which visitors to our country can and should enjoy (some of) the rights and privileges of citizens, and to what extent. I suggest *you* read and re-read the case law interpreting the Constitution. Start here: Yick Wo v. Hopkins. This case does not limit the government’s power to deport, but it does state that non-citizens do enjoy certain rights under the Constitution. Yick Wo does not, on its own, resolve this issue of whether a person on a temporary visa may be deported for mere speech—I probably lean toward the negative on that point, but I understand the opposing view, even if it is not a shining example of our values—but it rather decisively rebuts your unfounded assertion that the Constitution only protects US citizens.
(P.S. As a lawyer, I’ve spent a fair bit of time reading and studying the Constitution, its history, and the law interpreting it. I lean hard libertarian, originalist, and textualist. And I also believe we are the beneficiaries of the greatest political and governmental experiment in history, brought forth by an extraordinary collection of people. I also believe the Constitution is “not a suicide pact,” and that there is a significant tension between rights such as free speech and the need to protect the republic from outright subversion; forget about visa visitors for a moment, this is even a problem with actual citizens. (We’re watching the UK go down that drain right in front of our eyes.) But I don’t think we get to a fair balance on the matter by trying to silence those with whom we disagree.
If you think my post is unnecessary nastiness what do you think about the F bombs now being thrown around by the democraps. ( nasty) .
SCUSA case law , as it's called, changes as time goes on , as has been the case many a time . Depends on just how the majority changes over time. AND it has changed and along with that opinions handed down have changed . Latest being the reverse of Abortion law.
Let the visa holder , who dislikes what the USA is today , go back to their country and say what ever they think they can get by with. They just can't do the same here as a guest on a visa . The Host , who happens to be President Trump at this time, has the authority to revoke that visa at any time . That right is vested in the Executive Branch via the Constitution and not the Judicial or Leg. branches. You being a Lawyer seem , like most lawyers, to be hard wired into thinking you are right. BS ( again nasty) . Maybe that makes you a good lawyer to argue for what ever side you represent but it doesn't make you right.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You apparently cannot have a civil conversation; as to my "rightness," I merely expressed my opinion, and specifically noted that there are other points of view. The irony of you accusing me of being hard-wired to think I am right is pretty rich, wouldn't you say? ;) Try re-reading your post to which I first replied; sounds pretty hard-wired and condescending to me.
Anyway, this discussion isn't about nastiness from other people; there is way too much of that to go around. Why attempt to justify your own by citing that of others not present, when no one here has treated you as disrespectfully as you have them? Do you actually think only Democrats hurl "F bombs"? Please. Why not try setting an example of not being that way?
Anyway, yes, Supreme Court case law [called "SCUSA case law" by whom?] can and does change over time. An excellent example is Roe v. Wade—>Dobbs. There are many others. But for now and the last 125+ years, Yick Wo has remained the law of the land. I noticed you had absolutely ZERO substantive response to the Yick Wo point, especially as it rebuts your categorical assertion that only US citizens have rights under the Constitution; you might want to re-read §1 of the 14A, which specifically uses the terms “citizen” and “person” differently. One can read that language to suggest that only due process rights extend to non-citizens, and not other rights such as 1A. I think that's a reasonable interpretation [again, I am not hard-wired to think only my view is correct; that appears to be your shortcoming], but so far we do not have the benefit of a definitive SCOTUS interpretation.
As I said, I understand the point of view that encourages a temporary visa holder to feel free to espouse their own opinions in their home country. I just think this case is a bit more nuanced than merely that point. It is not clear to me to what extent 1A rights might be extended *under the Constitution* to persons who are not citizens. I think honest, patriotic citizens can disagree on that issue.
I look forward to the courts ruling in favor of these students who've done nothing more than exercise their 1A rights, while all you Islamophobes sit there with egg on your faces.
Forgot about destruction of property, inciting violence and assaulting Columbia employees. Do you have a concussion, or is your memory bad? Or just more inconvenient facts?
How about if they not only disagree with you ..but tell you that you are not allowed to have other guests of a certain background in your home or certain food products made in specific places??? And if you don't comply ...they will break your windows & spray paint your house...perhaps even camp out on your lawn with a bull horn.
What or whom did Ozturk trash, threaten or harass? Notwithstanding Rubio's general comments, nothing like that has emerged in the week since the arrest, and protest activities were pretty well covered at the time.
The woman simply co-authored a letter to the university president with zero threats in it. Your analogy about screaming atop our dining table is ludicrous.
This kind of statement is emblematic of Matt's complaint about the reporting on this "story." You cannot possibly know with certainty that co-authoring a letter is the only offense she has committed, for which her Visa has been revoked. There may be other allegations that the government is asserting, about which you have no detailed information, yet. Just because those allegations have yet to be reported publicly, does not mean that they don't exist.
Ask yourself this question: If the government had any evidence that this woman had violated the law, let alone supported terrorism, don't you think they would proudly disseminate it to prove their point?
Yes. And why these cases are of such concern. The overwhelming majority of these comments are not only unintelligent, they are just emotional diatribes. Which is the point of Taibbis recent article.
Not necessarily, at all. When lawyers are involved, there could be any number of explanations as to why there is no attempt by the federal government to try her case "in public" in the way in which you may be familiar.
Is there any evidence that Ozturk, the disappeared one, stood on America's dining table and screamed or otherwise did anything wrong? I have seen nothing presented by the government that suggests she did. Do you have information otherwise?
Yeah. They delivered it with my cash payment . . .
What else would you call someone grabbed up by masked ICE agents and whisked to an out of state detention center with no charges being filed and held incommunicado? "The disappeared one" is absolutely what she is.
Yes, you definitely have the script. Every cliche.
ICE agents have to be masked because violent Dem mobs will doxx them and their wives and their children. This is so stupid, if she's 'disappeared' then how do you know where she is?
Yep. So silly to say that she's disappeared when she's only been stuffed in a cell somewhere in Louisiana for contributing to a wrong-think op ed. Louisiana is really nice this time of year too!
If you remove a non-citizen's right to free expression, then no one has a right to free expression anymore, including citizens. Without due process anyone can be made a "non-citizen".
Yep. You know those "naturalized" citizens? Aren't they kinda guests also? I mean, they do come from foreign countries. And maybe those who were born here might have foreign born parents who have some questionable paperwork on file. Maybe we should start including them in our lists.
If you did not read Thunder's comment with sarcasm, then I will just say it appears to present sarcastically. If you think the sarcastic read of the comment is un-American, then that is a whole different story.
Interesting how worked up the US establishment gets over criticism of the doings of one (and only one) foreign country. Even criticism of US foreign policy actions are fine, unless they relate ot one (and only one) foreign country.
You mean Turkey, of course? Invaded and forcibly occupied N Cyprus since 1974 - yet not a peep from "the US establishment". More recently invaded, occupies northern Syria. Still, not a peep. Routinely bombs, slaughters Kurds in their undisputed homeland - not a word of protest. Why not?
Oops, sorry, maybe you mean China? Invaded, destroyed, slaughtered, occupied Tibet for many decades - yet "the US establishment" is silent. Herds millions of Uyghurs into forced labor concentration camps. But not a peep. Obvious evidence of nefarious conspiracy!
Oh, perhaps you mean Pakistan? Forcibly deports millions of Afghan refugees, off-and-on shotting war with India over "occupied territory" of Kashmir? "The US establishment" seems to have no interest. Zionist conspiracy, obviously?
It's almost as if that one and only foreign country has MASSIVELY undue influence over the US Establishment, while the supporters of that one and only foreign country scream bloody murder when any OTHER foreign country (allegedly) tries to influence the US Establishment. Hmmm...
This feels like a bad interpretation of the reality of the situation. She co-authored an op-ed.
A US citizen set himself on fire for the cause of the Palestinian people and what’s happened to them before and since October 7th.
Deporting those taking advantage of the welfare system and other systems paid by hard working Americans is what Americans thought they were getting. Not people who co-authored a op-ed.
A mentally ill US citizen lit himself on fire for Hamas. Rioters on college campuses who ransack the place, paint swastikas on library walls and demand to be fed is what people are fed up with. If they're on F1 visas, let's walk them through the exit door.
She rioted, ransacked and painted swastikas on library walls??? Holy moly. Why didn't Marco tell us about this? That's weird. Maybe it just slipped his mind as he was imagining about how she lied on her visa application regarding coming to the US in order to protest against events which were to take place in the future.
More like, a visitor invited to your home writes an article about how her school shouldn't sell Sabra since the people profiting from it are committing international war crimes and genocide.
Instead of disagreeing that Sabra is evil, you call Trump because you gave him a lot of money, and tell him to grab the zip ties and detain them without due process, and Marco Rubio says "any words against Sabra are words against jews, which is anti-semitism, which means you are an international security threat".
That will stop everyone from trying anything like this again you think to yourself... without realizing that you just made half the world not want to come to your dinner parties anymore, and even your regular tax paying neighbors are like "fuck that".
Except she did none of these things. How is speaking out against another country, Isreal, which is not the US btw, any sort of illegal activity??? Newsflash, it’s not. This heavy handed approach should scare everyone. As was demonstrated with the Jan 6 detainees, government departments should not be trusted, and will bend the law anyway they see fit to punish those they choose to.
*Your* home is *your* property. Who exactly owns the US? Whose property is it exactly? Who gets to say who can come and who has to go? Marco Rubio? What an infantile analogy.
You have a right to ask any visitor to leave your house, because it's your house (though you don't have a right to kick them on their way out, if all they've done is say things you disagree with).
But if others who live there don't speak up, they must not really care about ideas being expressed freely in that house, and they're making a foolish bet that they'll always agree with you.
"Making money"LOL, 10 to 1 it's USAID IE my tax dollars . Why should I pay for a Visa holder to come into my house and berate my house? Follow the money IE Thanks a million for Elon Musk and DOGE via President Trump the NGO's IE our Tax dollars are going to be stopped from paying for our own destruction.
I want them deported. NOT bc of Israel or antisemitism— but bc they are snotty, antiAmerican, entitled brats studying here to plot our demise. And not even appreciate it! They can wait for their due process in a holding cell just like Americans do. Does no one on the left know what a country jail is for? If they dont like it- go home!!
LIE on a Visa application as to the purpose of your request for a Visa and expect to be allowed to stay . BS you lied you get deported with no expectation of ever receiving another Visa. Unless the democraps get back into the White House.
Seems you are rooting for total genocide of the Jews. Seems we have fought a World War to stop just such a thing from happening . If you don't know it was World War II.
"from the river to the sea" . Do tell us just what that means since your such a brilliant (fool).
Do tell us what it means when Israel's zionist leadership says it:
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Netanyahu: "And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
You clearly didn’t read my full statement. When an American is arrested they are held in the country jail while they wait for their due process. Law professors and their nit wit students have no idea what they are talking about.
I didn't have to, once I got to the spot where you were whining about how people who say things you don't like should be deported.
I feel the need to keep pointing this out - what happens when a different flavor of thin skinned, authoritarian snowflake is in control, and they don't like what you have to say?
Why do I feel the need to attack thin skinned authoritarian snowflakes cheering censorship in the substack that is explicitly anti-censorship?
Probably because I even have to answer this very, very, VERY simple question.
Your inability to understand that comments calling for censorship and for masked government agents to disappear people just like Stalin did goes against everything this substack stands for diminishes the quality of your argument.
If she was a US Citizen then your debate would hold water. She's not . She is a visa holder . Visa holder who's visa has a stated purpose for the requested visa . She can't change her mind and now claim the visa is for protest and occupying Campus buildings etc which is what she did. Visa revoked , Visa holder removed . All legal actions by the Executive Branch . No review by judicial branch . It is not under their branch of the Gov. to have a say . Visa holder is nothing more than an allowed visitor by the Executive Branch.
YOU cannot inject extra power to the judicial just because some liberal lawyer thinks they can.
I want them deported for the same reasons you do - we should not allow foreign enemies in our midst. But jail is for when we have probable cause to believe someone has committed a serious crime. The constitution applies universally and this woman had the right to due process before having her visa revoked, it's un-American to bypass this with a secret, arbitrary process and then have masked, plainclothes enforcers grab people off the street.
Exactly this. If there is credible reason to believe she has supported terrorism, then due process will bear that out. But there is no such evidence. This is all an encroachment of all of our rights. If they remove free speech rights for the least of us, then it's not long until citizens face the same removals.
How many of you "due processors" complained when Obama's DOE "dear colleague" letter (under threat of loss of federal funding) forced colleges to set up Kangaroo Title IX courts to railroad scores of young men for "harassment?" Not many.
I definitely have been complaining about that since it happened. That was a huge change for the worse.
If you read my comment again, you'll find that I'm pointing out the fact that if you don't do things in public, the facts of your defense are not public.
"I want them kicked out because I don't like them." At least you admit it, but maybe consider what's best for the nation and its future. Perhaps during the next admin they'll find a reason to deport someone you care about because someone doesn't like them. I mean, my god, do you not remember the J6 horseshit? Same coin, opposite side.
I am thinking about what’s best for the country. Are you privy to the state of Europe at the moment? Europeans have sounded like just like you for the past 20 years and now they’re crying they let their homeland be taken over inbreeding jihadists collecting welfare.
Here in America the Bill of Rights is for Americans. SCOTUS has already protected POTUS’s Constitutional given power to control the border, immigration and deportation as he sees fit.
You are conflating uneducated migrants crossing the border illegally to a highly educated woman with a visa, who happened to write an article against genocide. I hope you open your heart to understand the difference and not let hate for the “other” consume you.
Why all the hatred? She wrote an article that did not support genocide. I don’t support it either. Am I next? BTE, I voted for Trump three times, but don’t agree with this.
I assume that many or most of the commenters here were motivated to subscribe in part because of Matt's and Walter's opposition to Big Tech and other NGO and government "disinformation" censorship. I know I was.
It's amazing to see how many of you now take the position of "Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee" (in the late great Nat Hentoff's words).
Not only does Ozturk have First Amendment rights to write what she wrote and otherwise express her opinion, the clauses in the INA which the government relies on to permit the Secretary of State to arbitrarily and summarily deport someone without any standards are unconstitutionally vague and violate the due process rights which Ozturk also has.
Trump's own sister, the late federal district court judge Maryanne Trump, ruled that way in Masseau v. Reno, 915 F.Supp 681 (1996)!!!!
Beyond that, it's astounding that so many commenters here don't believe that a right like free speech is natural, universal, inalienable, given by God as the Founders believed, but something doled out by the state according to arbitrary status distinctions like citizenship or residency unrelated to any real national interest.
Why should Americans care if Ozturk wrote that we should boycott and stop aid Israel, beyond having a First Amendment right to read her perspective and consider it? Because it's not just about her right to speak, it's about we citizens' right to hear her. That's an underappreciated aspect of these deportations. They want only one message coming through.
"......according to arbitrary status distinctions like citizenship or residency unrelated to any real national interest." You lost me when you claimed citizenship is an arbitrary distinction.
Also Judge Barry's decision was reversed by the Third Circuit. 91 F.3d 416. Nice try, no sale.
It was reversed on procedural not substantive grounds. From Alito's opinion: "We do not reach the merits of the constitutional questions decided by the district court."
Her critique of the provision of the INA was not addressed and remains standing.
Again, you either believe rights are natural, universal, inalienable as the Founders did, or you want an oppressive regime for people who visit.
Clearly you need to re-read the 3rd Circuit's decision. Judge Barry found a provision of the law unconstitutional. The Circuit Court found she lacked jurisdiction to even hear the matter. Are you contending now that the has been found unconstitutional.
Visiting any country is a privilege not a right. Try going, even to a Western European country or the UK and violating their speech codes. Not to mention advocating for Christianity in an Islamic satrapy or for freedom in Cuba of Venezuela.
No, I'm not contending that it's been found unconstitutional since Trump's opinion is not binding. I'm saying it's the only judicial opinion on the subject, and it's correct and persuasive. The law is too vague and arbitrary to satisfy due process requirements. It's tiring arguing law with a non-lawyer.
I don't care about other countries rules. Why not mention China and North Korea too?
I'm in favor of the (previous) US standard of free speech and alien rights. You are not, since you agree with Jackson's dissent in Terminiello, which would bring in a European or UK standard for free speech.
Citizenship is an arbitrary distinction if we consider free speech an inalienable right. If free speech is only ever something a nation state grants on a whim, we have no right to object when governments like ours dabble in censorship, or when totalitarian regimes punish speech crimes with draconian sentences.
It's been legitimately shocking, and not a little bit depressing, to watch how quickly my fellow Taibbi commentors went from quoting Marcus Aurelius to re-enacting the droogs beating the shit out of a hobo scene from Clockwork Orange. Many, many times I have expressed a profound willingness and hope that elements of MAGA and people like myself on the old-school left could form a coalition to wrest our country away from the neoliberal/neocon failsons currently piloting it into the abyss. I now see that we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.
And seriously, if I have to suffer through one more "a guest in your home who is annoying" analogy I'm gonna lose my actual shit. Where did my enlightened warriors and "I'll defend to the death your right to say it" people go? Trump wins the election and y'all turn into a bunch of HOA Karens? Jesus, listen to yourselves! It's fucking embarrassing.
For what it’s worth I think a lot of people on the right are alarmed at trumps Middle East policy. However you are dealing with nationalists at heart and feel a real sense of betrayal that many of these students would just as likely hate on their adoptive country in another op-ed. Still, they might be deporting the immigrants but they are still trying to crack down on the rights of citizens too. It’s ridiculous the side that has been upset about hate speech laws, rightfully so, is doing the same for under the guise of anti-semitism.
Exactly. I'm totally game to make space for the right's nationalism, even if I don't exactly share it. I just think, were I a staunch nationalist, my inclination would be that the US figures out how to stop being Israel's bitch, instead of clutching pearls on their behalf.
This is the beginning of a discussion of whether we should accept bigoted immigrants. If we were attracting people on F1 student visas that wanted to bring benign cultural traditions and ideas (as most legal immigrants do), that's what we want. We are also attracting and tolerating immigrants destroying property, assaulting LEOs and employees at colleges and targeting and inciting violence against another religious group.
We shouldn't be accepting this. These imported bigots not only do not want to integrate and adopt our values, they're attempting to impose their values on the rest of us.
If I were able to visit a Moslem country, i would need to conform to their standards of modesty and behavior. But the US has allowed people even to emigrate who have no intention of integrating. It’s unwise.
A visitor on a work or student visa does not have the same rights as a citizen. I was vetted before being allowed to emigrate to Israel.
That's a shitty, laughable, and if we look at recent history, wildly prone to abuse justification. I'd argue, probably more effectively, that the United States' national security interests are better served by removing Israel's dick out of our mouth, at which point most of you would go back to whining about guests and dining tables and shit.
Vague national security claims don't trump the 1st amendment. So far, the government hasn't provided any justification for her detention and visa revocation.
Curiosity as to the government's justification for her detention and visa revocation is valid. At least you admit that it is possible that there is something more than an op-ed that caused her arrest. But, if eventually you get an answer to that, and the evidence is compelling that she is guilty of more than disagreeable speech, where will you stand?
I will have to see what that justification is. There is little reason for Rubio not to explicitly state publicly the best reasons for her visa revocation given the nature of immigration court proceedings, so I'm skeptical he's got an ace in the hole. I will be watching the case with interest.
Thomas—Thank you for your analysis and I agree with much of it. Would it make any difference to your views that the statute addressed in Massieu v. Reno (D.N.J 1996) 915 F. Supp. 681 was sec. 241 ((a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA enactment, which is so vague that it doesn’t describe any forbidden conduct at all?
Whereas presumably Ozturk was detained under the endorse-terrorism provision.
From the court's opinion (Barry, J.):
“The relevant deportation statute, 241(a) (4) (C) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’), provides simply that ‘[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable’.”
By contrast, the endorse-terrorism provision (the codified version at 8 U.S. Code sec. 1182 (a)(3)(B) (VII)) states that an alien who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” is deportable.
In Massieu, the proposed deportee was a Mexican academic, whose politician brother had been assassinated in Mexico. Massieu himself wasn’t charged with doing anything but simply entering into & being in this country.
Agreed, the U.S. govt has to follow procedures, like notice and a hearing. But the statutory language in the endorse-terrorism provision is entirely more specific than the statute addressed in Massieu.
I don't know. They are probably using everything they think might work. I assume it was 8 USC § 1227(a) 4)(C)(i) because in that part it's State's sole decision and they put that puppet Rubio in front of the cameras to say he made the decision.
I would say the "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" is also too vague and vague as applied.
If I say I want a united Ireland am I subject to being found to endorse the Real IRA, which is on the terrorist list?
Everything about this case is wrong, but what makes it so scary is the manner in which these people are being taken. Being surrounded by anonymous, masked, thugs and hustled in an unmarked car is an act of terrorism, designed to intimidate those watching. There was no reason not simply to have asked the woman to please come for an interview on her immigration status. What could she have done? She would certainly have complied, as would Khalil. If they had not, that defiance would itself have been justification for what the government wants. Instead they’re testing the waters by using illegal means, and those tests, if the attitude of readers here, and in other media are any indicator, show that a shocking proportion of the public has an appetite for fascism. People are so eager to demonize these students they believe the lies they’re being told in the classic manner of a lynch mob. No other comparison is honest.
Kind of like when the Biden cabal dispatched FBI SWAT teams to arrest elderly political opponents such as Stone and Navarro or grandmothers opposing abortion or moms who objected to porn being forced on their kids in school. But now you're weeping when a terror supporter gets pinched?? Cry me a river to the sea.
Include Brian Malinowski, Little Rock airport administrator. Shot and killed by ATF in predawn raid of his home on suspicion of buying and selling too many firearms. All they had to do was talk to him. Outrage for foreign students, crickets for american citizens.
This is exactly the point Bruce, you're saying it's wrong to send FBI SWAT teams to arrest elderly political opponents, but fine to arrest students on the street in what looks like South American junta thugs. Biden bad, Trump good. Try for one fucking second to be bipartisan. Both sides are corrupt assholes. There is no right side. I also find it comically hypocritical that you all are celebrating government becoming smaller and more lean, and then cheering on federal agents nabbing people off the fucking street.
Why do all these comments about "kinda like J6 cry me a river" suppose that we weren't equally pissed (more so even) about the J6 detentions?
I screamed from the rafters to all my "good liberal friends" about the injustice of that and why we should ALL care. They gave me the same stupid horseshit answers about "supporting terrorism" that those defending the "hamas" revocations do.
You guys are both (you and my idiot liberal friends) the ones saying the same hypocritical shit about the guilt of these so-called terrorist supporters when it's precisely the readers here at Racket who've been paying attention to this and being consistent about opposition to this kind of government abuse of power.
Stop making excuses- you're the one who sounds like the J6 pearl clutchers. That was never us.
If you can show me a few of your protestations I'll be impressed. But you on the left either remained silent when the Biden Cabal weaponized Justice and the FBI - or cheered them on. Few if any on the right applaud using the FBI as a hit squad. But we certainly do differentiate between repression of American CITIZENS and foreigners who are here at our sufferance and are spitting on our hospitality and largess.
I can't "show you my timeline" of outrage going back in comments sections for the past half dozen years, man. I can show you my many years of receipts to Racket, and Greenwald, and Hedges, who have BEEN publishing the articles I've shared about this to everyone who tried to say otherwise: https://scheerpost.com/2023/03/05/chris-hedges-lynching-the-deplorables/
Please just entertain for a moment, the idea that many of the people upset now were just as upset then. Over J6 lawfare, over COVID authoritarianism, over the weaponization against Trump. Just as upset over people shrugging off the twitter files Censorship Industrial Complex.
Being the "targeted" ones usually means you're on the side of truth against power, and that is 100% true for many people in this country (particularly those without fully naturalized citizenship) who are speaking up about how Israel needs to be sanctioned/stopped/divested from.
It was propaganda that had people convinced the J6ers were all "insurrectionists" that deserved it- and it's propaganda that makes some think all college kids against Israeli are foaming at the mouth-hamas acolytes.
Not attacking you personally but many of us were well aware of the bullshit propaganda put out and lapped up like vomit by the supine media flacks re Covid and J6. I was a very early supporter of the Great Barrington Declaration and I am well aware that many of the campus demonstrators ar non-violent, even if they're stupidly supporting terrorists. But stupidity isn't criminal. It just makes it easier to be a Democrat.
So your argument is not that the tactics themselves are bad, it only depends whether you like the people using them? Or that censorship is cool as long as you get to choose who is being censored? Or Totalitarianism is good as long as you're in control of it? All of the above? I'd be careful with that. It tends not to end well.
Nope. Try reading it. It was a criticism only of the liberal pukes and their wailing over this case when they were silent when Biden's cabal was doing it. I don't like any strong arm tactics. Using SWAT teams on Tren de Aragua - fine. On otherwise law abiding people. Never.
Without comment on the underlying issue, this is in fact a more gentle approach than the Federal government has recently used to arrest people. I think it is safe to say that those who deplore this type of behavior were silent when the FBI arrested non-violent pastors using heavily armed swat teams during pre-dawn raids in front of their small children , or for non-violent political figures arrested by small armies and advance notice given to CNN. It saddens me and frankly makes me less sympathetic that people only notice the excesses when the opposition is in power.
This is not a subscriber-only article, but it's safe to say the vast majority of people here are subscribers. I think it's also safe to say that, at least here, those who deplore this type of behavior by the Trump admin also deplored the Biden administration's abominable record. What seems to be true is the opposite, that a significant number of people who supported freedom of expression and speech when Biden was cracking his authoritarian whip are now defending the Trump admin's use of that whip, or at least trying to whatabout their way around the issue.
Nope. Not a blanket defense. Just saying that foreign students do not have untrammeled rights. Still we should not be deporting people for writing articles or engaging in non-violent acts of protest.
I doubt that's true of the subscribers, but then again, I don't know what you mean by "a significant number." Count me as one who would be opposed to what has occurred in this case IF the ONLY cause for her arrest is an op-ed. I suspect there's more to it. We shall see, hopefully.
Seems to me that is exactly what the Biden administration was doing for 4 years. At the same time they were letting unvetted aliens into the country in large numbers. Don't think you had anything to say about that at the time.
You still haven’t provided any evidence that you were doing anything but cheering for the Biden regime’s depravation of rights and harassment of US citizens exercising their constitutional rights and peaceful (not mostly peacefully) doing so. Until such time, I will assume that you are the typical hypocritical pant wetting leftist.
Kinda like yours. It would be mean to suggest that you put your body where your mouth is and go to Gaza & offer your body as a human shield or as part of a Hamas harem.
Curious if there are any evaluations (couldn't find any with a brief search) of which countries are upholding Article 19. It seems like the list of countries that would score highly would be very short these days
The UN has no enforcement powers unless all of the Security Council unanimously agrees. And the US always protects Israel (otherwise our politicians would get nothing from AIPAC, and would have to deliver on their promises to constituents, a scary thought-- sounds like work?)
Only those of you who support the Executive branch's attempts to deport those condemning the Israeli government's actions (which frankly comes off as Islamophobic/bigoted against Arabs, btw) are asking that "underlying question." The rest of us, who aren't blinded by pro-zionist bias, already know the answer: YES, non-citizens are also protected by 1A.
It’s not chilling at all. When she applied for a visa she was informed at that time what was expected of her behavior while she visited the USA. She ignored these provisions so she’s out of luck.
It is possible that the federal government has information about her activities that Matt Taibbi does not. It's not necessary that someone be charged with a crime to have their visa revoked. All they have to do is violate the terms and conditions of their visa. It is entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State to make that decision.
On one hand, I would like to more about her: how old is she, what did she do before getting her visa, who is funding her (USAID money?), did she lie on her visa application, what exactly was she studying? On the other hand, has Rubio & company done anything wrong, or is he just doing the best that he can.
This feels like a media event, just like the Signal flare-up. If only we had laws, instead of judges.
Then the government should show us. Instead, it’s being given a list of undesirable by the Israel lobby and deporting people on their behalf with no due process.
Seriously? I am stunned at the toxic vitriol in these comments.
She didn't stand on any tables, she didn't scream anywhere that I've seen - and if she did, so what? Sticks and stones. She co-authored an Op-Ed in a student newspaper, a year ago.
They came for her masked up and unmarked and kept her incommunicado...
holy shit. WTF?
Foreign students pay full freight and are what's keeping these schools going. They obviously do appreciate what's here, that's why they're here. What was here, anyway.
What's unrecognizable is that at least the readers in the comments then WERE opposed to the Biden admin weaponizing the government.
Now the comments are filled with zionist shills claiming that either this is totally fine OR claiming that somehow people who didn't "fight hard enough" for the J6 defendants deserve the shoe being on the other foot.
You sound like they did then, just replace MAGA with Hamas. "whah whah, poor trump supporters getting what they deserve".
Stop saying this. You sound like a paid shill. None of us crying about this now were silent then. It's all fucked and we're the ones being consistent while you sound exactly like the lib-tards claiming the J6 people "shouldn't have been there if they weren't trying to illegally overturn an election".
Being at the capital didn't make one a terrorist and neither does writing a oped to divest from fucking Israel.
It's easy for us consumers of news and opinions to believe we know all that law enforcement agencies know. I was a public affairs reporter myself many moons ago and covered numerous court cases involving the actions of police investigators. Let's see what comes to light in the days to come. Rest assured that we civilians do not get all the details as they emerge in real time. Nor should we in many cases, as ongoing investigations often do require controlled release of information. There could be - - and I'm going to say, probably are - - many more things to know about Ozturk's connections and activities. Just my hunch, keeping in mind also that she is not a citizen of the United States and is here provisionally.
But, yes, keeping up the pressure lets our officials know we aren't going to wander off and forget.
Good point. It seems odd that in the target-rich environment of students on foreign visas expressing their opinions, sometimes quite forcefully, the State Dept would choose people who on the surface seem sympathetic. A green card holder with a pregnant wife, and a young woman who supposedly only wrote an op-ed. It’s quite possible there’s more to these stories than has been initially reported.
Foreign students and foreign donations—especially from Qatar. Even the Palestinian Authority donates to American Universities. They most likely use money we and the EU give them to donate back to fund programs that benefit them.
I just unsubscribed from Ken Klippenstein's Substack. Over time I found his reporting more ideological than I originally thought. Another reason was the absolute vitriol on his message boards. This has been spicy for a Racket article, but I assure you it can be a lot more hateful and irrational than what we're seeing here.
Rubio is right. These non-citizen students are guests, and as horrible as the Gaza war is, Hamas started this renewed war on October 7, 2023 and anyone supporting Hamas are supporting terrorists.
What we should be asking is why the countries closest in proximity to Gaza, like Jordan and Egypt, refuse to take in Palestinian refugees.
Could it be that Palestinians have repeatedly voted for terrorists to lead them even though their leaders are hypocrites who enjoy the rich life (i.e., Arafat and Hamas leaders) while their own people starve. Could it be that these countries don’t want any more dumb terrorists causing violence and pushing hatred in their countries?
"Free speech is only for people I agree with," said the idiot, fundamentally unable to understand that his friends won't always be in control of the government.
Hopefully you already know that 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians and their offspring forced out from Palestine over the years by Zionists. Most are well assimilated into Jordan.
However, some Palestinians attempted to overthrow the Jordanian king in 1970, 71 and he announced "no more Palestinians will be accepted into Jordan". Egypt has a smaller number but also fears effects on national security (much as Americans fear effects of illegal aliens). By international law, Palestinians have the same Right of Return as Jews.
A better question would be why force the Palestinians from their homeland (roughly two thirds of Palestinians already live outside of Palestine/ Israel)? Genetically Palestinians are essentially the same as indigenous Jews there, but religion is a toxic force.
Why should the USA allow all of these extremist students funded by anti USA funfing to come to the country and work full time against our country. ? wonderful that t eh Trump administration is taking a stand. the Dems have lost it completely
"Free speech is only for people I agree with," said the profoundly stupid person. "Other countries have robust censorship programs, so we should also have them here," continued the idiot, not understanding that at some point, some other thin skinned authoritarian snowflake might be in charge of what gets censored.
You could make the same argument against Israelis and dual citizen Zionists, heavily funded by US taxpayers particularly the warfare on their behalf, which undermines what America has always been about. For most of our history, wisely pushed by our Founding Fathers, the US was an independent isolationist nation, blessed with abundant resources and we could easily trade for what little we need. Now we are a mafia state run since WWII (or before) by oligarchs, which sets up US puppet dictators, steals other countries' resources and calls it "American Democracy!" (Does sound nicer.)
I haven't seen the government's charges against Ozturk. Writing an opinion in the university newspaper is not a crime. This isn't about immigrants or foreign students doing anything illegal, this is really about any support for Palestinians is now being considered Antisemitism. This is about crushing free speech and dissent under the guise that we have foreign students 'infiltrating" our country and committing 'crimes" that are yet unproven.
John Adams Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 essentially survives for national security during War. Not clear how Marco Rubio has this power in peacetime (though Woodrow Wilson and FDR also used it just before war).
Possibly Adam's Sedition Act ("The Sedition Act made it illegal to make false or malicious statements about the federal government") will be brought back as well (it expired under Thomas Jefferson, the political opponent target of the Act)? Of course no one cares if you criticize the US federal government, o the law would be revised to make it illegal to criticize Israel.
The Sedition Act of 1918 forbidding the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt" (Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years for Sedition, along with hundreds of others). The Act was repealed after WWI ended, and those convicted had their sentences commuted. "Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer [infamous today for the Palmer Raids] waged a public campaign, not unrelated to his own campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, in favor of a peacetime version of the Sedition Act. He sent a circular outlining his rationale to newspaper editors in January 1919, citing the dangerous foreign-language press and radical attempts to create unrest in African American communities."-- wikipedia
It’s terrifying to see how little time and effort it took to manufacture consent on this. If the point of Racket News was to educate and empower its readers to fight for free speech than Matt is doing a terrible job based on these comments.
I'm concerned that Matt might suffer from "audience capture." Since he started to write about government- and NGO-prompted Big Tech censorship of "disinformation" during the Biden years, he attracted a right-wing audience.
Now that these former "free speech" advocates have shown themselves as xenophobic authoritarians under Trump, will he shade his writing to minimize Trump abuses or call them out at the cost of some subscriptions?
It seems to me the new timeline approach is one that's hard to game. The timelines I've read seem to be 'just the facts'. How is that pandering to a right-wing audience?
I'm not saying it is pandering, and looking at the facts before writing an opinion is understandable.
But at some point the facts will become undeniable, and will warrant a strong statement of opinion.
In this case Matt is being overly cautious based on a week of (no) evidence against Ozturk other than some writing and participation in petitions and meeting.
I'd like to see him report on some Constitutional concepts that many commenters here are unaware of - for example, that aliens have substantial free speech and due process rights.
It's nauseating seeing these comments stating Ozturk had no free speech or due process rights.
It is right of Matt to wait for all the facts to come out before writing his opinion one way or the other; hence his travel plans, designed to aid in the search for information.
Exactly. It's the infamous Israel double-standard. When in reality, Matt is condemning violations of free speech no matter who's in power. Which is what a TRUE JOURNALIST should do. It's funny (sad) how those who praised Matt as a "real journalist" when he called out the Biden Admin's free speech violations, are now decrying him for doing the SAME THING with the current Admin.
Not everyone views this as a "free speech" issue, despite it being presented this way.
Some of us see this as the govt having the right to revoke the visas of guests who support Hamas, a designated terror org that has killed and kidnapped American citizens.
Some people see "free speech" as the paramount value, even though people here on visas do not have the same rights as Americans and must swear to not support terrorist orgs as part of their visa applications; others prioritize the civil rights of Americans here to attend class sans harrassment and agree that it's against American interests to allow Hamas supporters an open door into our country.
It's a question of competing values, which is why we're all here arguing.
I respect and appreciate Matt, but don't need him to do my thinking for me.
I believe all these people are on record as supporters of Hamas and are affiliated with orgs that support Hamas and that cheered the 10/7 massacre and denounced Israel even before the bodies were cold and before the IDF even moved into Gaza.
There is evidence if you care to accept it in good faith.
I would accept evidence in good faith but your opinion is not evidence. I call it an opinion because you started it with “I believe” and there’s also no evidence of anything you just said.
“I believe” simply means I don't have total certainty, as I don't really devote much time to reading the writings of college "activists".
My thoughts are 1) these people seem to have written and protested in support of Hamas, a designated terror org, which is a possible visa violation; and 2) they all seem to be affiliated w "pro-Palestinian" orgs, who are all proud supporters of terrorism, which they call "uprising" or some other romantic term meant to whitewash murder.
I am happy to revise my opinion if I discover I was wrong, but I think these are all commonly recognized facts.
I haven’t seen any evidence of support for Hamas in any writings or in any news coverage. I don’t think it’s right to conflate pro-Palestinian views with terrorism, those lies are how the consent for this is manufactured. I want actual evidence and proof then I’ll shut up. It’s not right to do this without evidence and I would want that same courtesy extended to me if something like this happened to me. When you or anyone else has actual evidence let me know!
Or.... many of his subscribers are so blinded by their pro-zionist and/or Islamophobic biases, they are unable to see the historical nuance and context underlying those who support the Palestinian cause.
Oztuck degree was at Columbia thanks to the Fulbright Scholarship and she moved on to Tufts.
This is how it works when foreigners with a grudge attend elite Universities in America. The Tufts Community Union Senate passes three resolutions offered by the school’s Coalition for Palestine Liberation.
Who at Tufts is part of the Community Union Senate? What is their involvement with politics at the Tufts?
Tufts has a Coalition for Palestine Liberation, its member are from where? How many other Coalitions does Tufts have?
Are student there to learn or be activists? Appears both according to why the Fulbright Program came about. Yes, Dept of State oversees the Program.
The Fulbright Program is the flagship international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. Government and designed to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. The FP was established by Congress in 1949.
As a Program of the U.S. Department of State, citizen diplomacy in the content of strengthening international relations is central to the Fulbright Program. However, it has always been truly academic, with respect for the freedom and integrity with respect to politics that characterize the scholarly and intellectual discourse that emerge from the Program, both within and across national boundaries.
Schools and academic institutions have played an even more central role in receiving foreign participants such as giving them full access to mentors, free courses, libraries and laboratories. Furthermore, through designated foreign student advisers on campus, and voluntary community groups off campus, helping them adjust to new surroundings. Of special importance to the Program, American institutions have been generous in providing scholarships, visiting professorships, and other forms of financial assistance without which the bulk of foreign participants would never have been able to take advantage of the opportunity to study in the United States. Dating from the early days when the program had to rely so heavily on nonconvertible foreign currencies, the stateside expenses of the foreign participant have been largely defrayed by American educational organizations and institutions.
It was originally financially supported by the Carnegie Corporation and Rockefeller Foundation. It was pushed through and supported for decades by Democrats.
Oztuck as a ‘Graduate Student was not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting that passed three of the four resolutions DEMANDING that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.
Here are the Tuft’s ‘activist groups’ that rejected the University’s response: Graduate Students for Palestine, Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts FACULTY and STAFF Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine. It now questions the University’s commitments to [a]ctive citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protests, gatherings, and demonstrations enshrined in its Student Code of Conduct.
Tufts response to the three demands were rejected because it was dismissive of the collective voice of the student body, which is instrumental in enacting systemic changes, and it mischaracterize its resolutions as divisive.
Perhaps a solution is to let the colleges/universities decide to be self-supporting through student debt and continue with on-campus protests, gatherings, and demonstrations without USG school and student grants and funds or; disband these activist hotbeds of political rhetoric and get on with the endeavor of educating students.
There are other forms to effect change. Let the students protest on public sidewalk, in parks with permits and submit opeds to newspapers, write to public servants asking for the changes they seek.
I would say the same thing if those groups had Israel rather than Palestine in their names.
I’ve had it up to here with the bleeding hearts rushing to defend the “rights” of foreigners, guests, who behave in unwelcome ways. It’s a huge privilege to be admitted to America to attend an elite school. One should behave in a respectful and grateful way.
Americans who traveled abroad used to be called the “ugly Americans” because they didn’t know local social customs and acted like dolts. Can we call out the ugly foreign students who come here and do way worse? Or are we supposed to shut up and let them destroy our society in the name of special consideration for them?
"Are we a sovereign nation or are we not?" -- For the answer, substitute AIPAC and other Israeli NGOs here on US soil for every instance you wrote "foreigners" and "ugly foreign students."
What did she do that was wrong? Nothing, so you make up lies about her based on what others that share her politics/beliefs/race have done. It’s simple guilt by association. Ironic coming from Israel.
in cases like this, to me the issue has always been the morphing of free speech into campus building takeovers and protestors telling others where they can or can't go. it's coercive and it doesn't have a legit place in higher ed. and before someone flips about my handle, Doge was my dog's name, she looked a lot like the Dogecoin dog and was not affiliated with Elon, had no Tesla or Twitter account
Sorry Matt, you're fighting an obsolete battle. That ship has sailed. By which I mean a principled First Amendment absolutism. Credulous belief in an objective and balanced justice system was tottering before Covid, thanks to the situational justice of the Left; it was on its deathbed after our Covidiots suspended the First Amendment right of assembly for all but a favored group; and it died from the courtroom charades perpetrated on Donald Trump. A few have belatedly awoken but only because - quelle horreur! - the Right is now using the Left's cynicism against it. With a patently corrupt judiciary siding with the Left, the revolution is inevitable. Something new and different will emerge, but it's 50-50 if it will resemble our First Amendment culture we've had since the Founding.
Considering the degree of censorship that the Biden admin imposed on the American people via nefarious means on social media, I find it difficult to get worked up about the "free speech" rights of foreigners. Being in this country is a privilege for them, not a right. If there is an attitude of "free speech for me, not for thee," it's coming from Democrats and the left.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Don't see anything about "foreigners" or "privileges" there. See also Bill of Rights, don't see anything about "citizens," only "people."
Is then the concept of foreigners and citizen irrelevant? Were they not mentioned in the Constitution, because they were deemed at the time to be a states issue? I mean, I have sympathy for your line of argument, but in practice, it seems necessary to have some standards on immigration and border control, that require these concepts.
I sympathize with the idea that free speech should be applicable to "visitors". I'm also sympathetic to the idea that "visitors" should refrain from being impolite to their "hosts". If their criticism is confined to explaining what they see as injustice by their host, as hosts who believe in the preeminence of free speech, we should be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.
I'd like to see more clarity and transparency in the charges or violations of the terms of their visas for people being deported. I'd like to see arrests being made by uniformed officers. I'd like to see due process being honored, courts respected, and judges rulings followed while appeals are pending. I'd also like to be sure the hearings and appeals are fair and speedy. Is this too much to ask?
Unfortunately, the judicial system has lost all credibility given the past 32 years, especially regards immigration. Seems like the judicial system is anti-citizen and only wants closed borders to keep illegals inside the country. This partly explains the emotions surrounding student visas and the Christmas 2024 battle on X over H1b visas.
I think the left has the better argument on Ozturk given what we now know. But the left’s hypocrisy and silence over the far more horrific actions of the judicial system towards peaceful J6 marchers and peaceful abortion protestors should never be forgotten. The left is in control of the judiciary, and the feigned ignorance over the selective application of the law makes Claude Raines look like a piker.
Visas are not under the purview of the judicial system. It is a request for a visit for a purpose. Lie about that purpose or violate , in any way , the stated purpose of said visa and one gets deported. It is up to the executive branch and not the leg. or judicial branch. PERIOD!
I'm asking, do we have transparency about what was lied about on the visa application? Is voicing opposition to Israel, based on events that occurred after entry, justification for removal? Is indeed, vocal support of Hamas, again, based on events that happened after granting of a visa, grounds for removal? If so, then be clear about this, and trust that the courts will eventually rule properly.
I have zero trust—as in none, nada, zip—that the courts will rule properly. If they continue like this unchecked, we’ll become Britain. We clearly already have a two-tier system based on political viewpoint, which all the free speech “absolutists” of the left ignore because they approve of censorship on American citizens they disagree with.
Try reading the Immigration and Naturalization Act. By the way, illegal immigrants have the fewest "rights," following by people on visas, and then legal permanent residents have more. But still not equivalent to citizens.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen born in New Mexico. He (and later two of his children) was "extrajudicially" killed as a target of an Obama drone attack. Sounds pretty equivalents to non-citizens?
Some of us remember when the ACLU was free speech absolutist and argued in favor of Nazis to peacefully assemble and parade. But even then those were citizens.
Having lived in Boston for several years, I suspect Casper's (MA - Obama appointee) order is simply a politically motivated impediment ploy. It literally happens every day in that city.
I still believe the Secretary of State still have the overriding authority.
Student visas have no standing. If she or anyone on a student visa becomes an unpleasant guest in our country then it is completely within the rights of the State Dept to revoke the visa. Buh bye.
This timeline does not provide any of the necessary information to determine whether her limited rights under immigration law or the First Amendment were violated. I don’t see the detention warrant linked here or the specific facts that triggered the INS action. Nothing but speculation and the same NGOs and usual cast of characters pitching a fit. She will receive all due process accorded to the law and the lawful outcome will be determined.
The underlying issue here is that the public outrage machine goes into high gear over THIS particular individual. If you live in any urban or suburban area in the country there are massive injustices occurring to American citizens every day within a mile of your home. Why are the job prospects of young working class people, particularly young men without college degrees so limited, and yet if you go to ANY construction site the only language being spoken is Spanish? Why are so many working age Americans “not in the workforce” and so not counted in government unemployment statistics? Why are there so many people on Social Security Disability and the numbers rising? Why are so many people addicted to deadly drugs imported from our southern neighbors and living in squalor or in tents on the streets? I see lots of injustice all around me, and the very last thing on my radar is some entitled grad student from Turkey getting their student visa revoked.
This is just another contrived story to get latent lefties excited and suddenly screaming about constitutional rights, the same very rights they consistently ignored for the last four years. I don’t care about this person at all and it’s disappointing to see Racket wasting time on this story. Let’s talk about what the hell is happening to Americans and leave this trivia political narrative to NYT and WAPO.
"I don’t care about this person at all and it’s disappointing to see Racket wasting time on this story."
...do you count yourself a critic of 'leftist cancel culture'?
Because you either care about both or you don't care about both. It is incoherent to care about one and not the other.
Thence, if you've spent any appreciable amount of time criticizing 'cancel culture', and you do not care about what has happened to this person for peacefully speaking her mind, it is clear you had ulterior motives in your criticisms...just as the left claims the critics of cancel culture do.
Regular Americans, not the Visa holding type, are being censored for their opposition to Israel's genocide. We aren't being shipped out of state without criminal charges, but it feels very much like during Covid, where having the wrong belief and saying the wrong thing will lose you a twitter account, or maybe get your foreign classmate on watch list for liking your comment about how Israel sucks. Not to mention, they stripped degrees from the graduating kids suspended over the physical occupation parts, including US students paying tuition.
The issue isn't so much that Rubio is going around revoking student Visas with cause, it's that there is no "due process" clearly being applied. Even the lawyers for the student haven't been "presented with charges". Did it occur to you that the reason this timeline is lacking the necessary information is because it has not been PROVIDED to even the accused and their legal teams/family?
If this government can get away with this, the next one can too. So far, we've watched them abuse legal citizens with weaponization of actual law and charges (as they did with Covid and J6 protestors under Biden) and now they are abducting people, defying court orders by sending PHD students to Louisiana detention centers... and getting your approval because you haven't "seen the proof of the charges"?
That's the opposite of how it's supposed to work- show me the proof or I assume it doesn't exist.
Like most everyone else's commentary here, that first paragraph focuses entirely on whether what has happened here is *legally permissible*, in order to avoid the question of whether it is ethically defensible.
Canceling someone on social media is legally permissible, too. Are you saying you do not therefore care about it, and do not find it ethically questionable? And if you don't, why was cancel culture ever a concern of yours in the first place?
I've long believed that if this country claims to practice democracy we should extend the same civil rights to everyone, regardless of their immigration status. It's unconscionable to arrest and deport someone because they've expressed an opinion a particular administration dislikes. . As noted in the timeline being remarked on here, the Trump administration has offered no evidence that this woman has done anything beyond doing so.
What you believe is not relevant. 1) We are a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy. 2) We don’t extend all civil rights to everyone: examples: only citizens can vote, and even citizens can by their own behavior lose certain and appropriately so.
I don’t care what they think, I care that they are not using their presence, platform or resources against US Law or policy in contradistinction to why they advertised on their visa application they wanted/needed to visit the US.
Since your examples of civil rights not extended to everyone are unstated or irrelevant in regard to Ozturk’s situation as we know it at present, please advise what grounds exist that justify her deportation for expressing opinions frowned on by the Trump administration. I also remain unclear as to why you thinkI have no right to beliefs/opinions regarding the administration’s treatment of Ozark because I referred to the existence of US“democracy”rather than “constitutional representative republicanism", following the practice of most if not all politicians.
a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you is a terrible guest. Most likely you would call the cops to drag the offender from your home. Rubio is correct. These people are visitors and should demonstrate their admiration for our political rights rather than assuming they currently possess them.
"a visitor to your home for dinner that stands on your dining table and screams at you AS YOU MURDER THEIR FAMILY TO STEAL THEIR LAND is a terrible guest."
Fixed it for you.
Man, I hate it when people aren't polite.
Two Brix for brains. We'll put you down as flacking for baby killers and murderers and rapists of innocents.
Yes, the IDF sure has killed a lot of babies, murdered a lot of civilians, and raped a lot of men and women.
Take notice , two brain cells, if you are here also on a visa we be looking for you! If not then you do have the right as a US citizen to peacefully gather and protest any action the US Gov. takes. You do understand the peacefully part . If not then you are subject to the laws of the USA . After 250 years one would think the likes of you , and especially visa , greencard holders AND illegals would understand the , now tks to President Trump, consequences of your actions! Even if you are intelligent enough to be allowed into the USA to pursue a college education does not give you any extra rights to then turn around and criticize the USA via such actions that you take.
"Free speech is for people I agree with!" wept Titania McGrath as she sat down to a big bowl of KarenFlakes gently moistened with her melted snowflake tears.
"People should be free to say what they want, as long as I agree with it!" she thought, as the ghost of Stalin smiled approvingly.
The deportation is based on behavior not speech. But I understand your legacy media over-lords won’t allow you to think.
Man when did the right become a bunch of whiny bitches?
January 2025, apparently
Sorry that you find facts objectionable.
Or just too plain stupid to consider that such a flimsy and ridiculous standard could be used against their favorite green card holder, visa holder, or just any foreign visitor after the next regime change in Washington.
Saw how well it had been working for the left, maybe?
I'm calling BS unless you can come up with sources other than "my friend knows a friend in the propaganda wing of Hamas..."
https://www.savethechildren.net/news/stripped-beaten-and-blindfolded-new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-and-abuse-palestinian
https://beeley.substack.com/p/israels-culture-of-rape-and-child?publication_id=716517&post_id=143376576&isFreemail=true&r=mzsp6&triedRedirect=true
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/8/welcome_to_hell_btselem_israel_torture
https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell_eng.pdf
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/7/12/israel
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-30/ty-article/.premium/doctor-who-saw-abused-gazan-detainee-i-couldnt-believe-an-israeli-jailer-could-do-this/00000191-0436-df85-a399-ed36f4800000?gift=b36cbf327d214b7a876e52f60987b0ca
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-gaza
https://accuracy.org/release/israel-atrocities-fabrications-and-complicities/
https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-army-sets-fire-to-north-gazas-last-functioning-hospital
https://www.btselem.org/video/20180424_soldiers_cheer_after_shooting_protester_madama
https://www.sott.net/article/284427-IDF-snipers-caught-on-camera-shooting-at-Gaza-children-and-celebrating-a-hit
https://www.haaretz.com/2013-06-20/ty-article/.premium/israel-tortured-palestinian-children/0000017f-f6d7-d5bd-a17f-f6ff33910000
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/video-shows-israeli-troop-shooting-palestinian-in-cold-blood/1113213
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/concentrate-and-exterminate-israel-parliament-deputy-speakers-gaza-genocide-plan
https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-report-on-palestine-military-occupation-apartheid-torture-israeli-violations-are-deliberate-organised-and-institutionalised/5372212
https://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/28/israeli-organ-harvesting/
https://truthout.org/articles/1-year-ago-israel-killed-shireen-abu-akleh-we-wont-forget-her-or-the-nakba/
https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/24/israeli-military-kills-two-more-journalists-in-separate-attacks-in-gaza/
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-israel-unlawful-air-strikes/
I asked for sources other than second-hand info. These are all biased sources of info. In fact, save the children's methodology was debunked because they were just taking random people and asking if they'd been "victims" while at the same time giving out cash and, of course, people feel like they need to give something for the money so they embellish. NONE of the "stories" were ever verified. Furthermore, Save the Children has given millions to lobbyists and politicians - face it, they're grifters. As for the rest, they're all leftwing/pro-palestinian sources, so of course they're going to spew disinformation. Which of these publications actually documented killings of Israeli children by Hamas and the other terrorists? None.
Many of your sources have a hatred bias. I'm sorry if this is the first you're hearing of it. I wonder how many of these had much to say on 10/7. I bet very few. I bet most haven't commented about the hostages. I bet only 1 or 2 commented about the recent Palestinian protests against Hamas and how those that participated are being killed by Hamas as we speak.
You do know that Hamas' goal is to establish a caliphate, right? Well, that and murdering anyone they see as an infidel (kafir). Which is likely you. And definitely me. Also, gay people. And a lot of Arabs.
But I'm sure you know all this. Because you're so well read and researched.
What, do you, like, read the news or something?
Right. Stanley.
He's two brix shy of a load.
Thanks for the laugh this morning!!
Wow, I could be this clever if only . . . I got a frontal lobotomy.
Is the jooooo in the room with you right now?
Yes, actually.
How about you?
I'm guessing not.
Don't take your eyes off of him!
Do you have a magic eight-ball full of nastiness that you rely n for your posts? You make no sense.
And do recall, Hamas killed babies, cooked them in microwaves, let them die as hostages, raped women, killed women, killed women while raping them, etc. Israel retaliated to an extremely violent provocation by Hamas. Hamas is to blame.
We’ll put you down as a cheerleader for terrorists.
Every human is descended from those whose land was "stolen". Every human is descended from someone who stole land. At some point you have to decide if the "struggle" is going to pay off and worth the cost (both to you and to your enemy). We romanticize the struggle because it is shown in movies and in order to get people to like those movies, the struggle pays off in the end. Human history shows that this is more often NOT the case. Most of us are completely unaware of these decisions by our ancestors.
So you are going to argue that, because in ancient societies lands were "stolen" by or from our ancestors, that somehow "justifies" the wanton violation of international law in 2025, agreed to by the US and all the countries that are UN members? In other words, ancient "law" supersedes and "justifies" the wanton violation of modern law? You want to erase the past 10,000 years of the development of human civilization to justify the utterly unjustifiable genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel? Is that really your argument?
It’s so interesting to watch the Trumpers on here argue for Israel the same way the blue MAGAs argue for Ukraine. The victims of both are officially unworthy and so not human.
They’re both impossible to try to reach with factual evidence. They don’t have any use for it. They’ve internalized their side of the debate and they’re sticking to it no matter what. They mirror each other.
I agree with the first paragraph of your statement but not the second. Many people “right” and “left” are being drawn by the intensity of real-world events into political debate for the first time in their lives and are trying to quickly get up to speed with those of us who have been political animals for decades. It’s our duty as socialists to try to educate our fellow workers who find themselves initially bogged down in the Republicrat swamp and are struggling against the lies being told to them by the US capitalist class’ bought-and-paid-for Democrat and Republican politicians.
Trust me. I continue to attempt to come up with different approaches to break through the wall of resistance to new information. Cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack.
You are free to believe what you like however you need to know that your view on this is delusional.
I do not believe that any honest worker - who is temporarily confused by the endless lies of the US capitalist class, their news media and their lying Republicrats - is “impossible to reach”. It’s our duty to “reach” them and help them understand what’s really going on.
Laws are useful only if they are obeyed.
In this particular situation, Islam has been committing genocide against all other people and taking their cities and lands, for fifteen centuries. The atrocities in Syria, Gaza, and across Africa show they are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.
The Jewish people are doing the same thing they’ve been doing since David & Goliath & the Philistines. They are still following their law, not some recent, arbitrary law which you prefer.
It is not different among other nations, Russia for example, America for example, Mexico for example, China for example.
That’s a very naive Eurocentric assertion on Islam. Exactly the issue I am referring to.
Not in the least.
Ask the Chinese, the Africans, the Indian subcontinent what they think about Islamic expansion. Like bangladesh, pakistan and much of afghanistan all of which were Indian lands from time immemorial. Ask them about the Hindu Kush mountains and what that name actually means.
Where does the word SLAVE come from?
The Israeli theft occurred under the current international order. Unless Israel's existence statehood is dissolved, the current order is dissolved. All Israelis whose families did not live in Palestine before 1900 should be considered for deportation.
you first. deport yourself and take the hamasniks with you.
That's a pretty long and boring way of saying that you don't believe in human rights.
Land rights and human rights are totally different.
Yes. I think a person who isn't a worthless piece of shit would say that human rights supercede land rights, but this forum seems to be full of stalinists.
Ah, you're a troll. Stalin! as an example of supporting any form of rights is the clue.
Enjoy your day! :)
Breathe. Is there someone who can get you a brown bag to slowly breathe into?
Well, shucks and every human is descended from those who tortured or were tortured. Just one of those things that people do to one another. Electricity has reduced the visible signs so it's even more insidious. Mostly hearsay, he said, she said kind of thing. Time marches on and barbarism is still tolerated and even excused.
Israel did not murder Gazans. Israel killed Gazans in a war of Gaza's choosing, since Hamas was Gaza's government as well as a terrorist group.
Israel did not steal "Palestinian" land. It won the lands popularly known as Gaza and West Bank legally and fairly after winning two wars--1948 and 1967--waged against it by Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. And in fact it gave Gaza back to Gazans twenty years ago after pulling out every single Jew and relocating every single Jewish grave. Gaza was Jew-free for years, but Hamas decided Jew-free wasn't good enough, Israel had to be Jew-free too. Thus this war.
Genocide? Bullshit. Israel had the capability to kill all 2 million Gazans on the same day if it wanted. It chose instead to slog building by building for almost two years now, putting thousands of its soldiers at risk instead of bombing Gaza with thermobaric weapons, which would have turned all 2 million Gazans into ash for bulldozing into the Med. It did no such thing.
You don't like dead Palestinians. Fine. I don't either. The solution to that is for Hamas to quit murdering Israelis. Without that October pogrom, Israel would not have fired a shot into Gaza.
There, fixed it for you.
You are just making shit up to feel smarter than everyone else here, while ignoring history.
I didn't make anything up to be smarter than you. Get back to me when you learn the history of Palestine, which officially became the State of Israel in 1948, both legally and morally.
I'm not getting back to you at all, because you're arrogant and borish, and anyone who mentions what WWII did as "moral" has read like no history.
Arrogant and "borish"? Geez, lady, you claimed I'm "making shit up to feel smarter than anyone else here." If you can't handle pushback, don't insult me to start with.
I didn't say anything about WWII. I said the founding of Israel was moral as well as legal, because it was.
I guess with all the Karl Marx reading you're doing at the encampment, there are only so many hours in a day. Enjoy the drum circle and catered dinner!
What I like is people outing theme selves for blocking. Bye.
Our country welcomes anyone who comes to America & resides in peace. However, when someone comes here, who hates Jews (or Christians), I am very offended. When foreign Arab students & guest professors are here on a temporary visa, and reside in our universities, there is usually a reason.
The majority have little interest in learning math or science. Frequently, they are focused on our connection with Israel & the Jews. They want to influence our foreign policy through the universities. Meanwhile, they disrupt our own citizens daily lives & make them fearful. They aren’t just expressing their political beliefs. At times, we feel the hate they emanate.
I hate to jump to conclusions but it appears that those who are vigorously defending the pro-Palestinian Arabs “rights” are just a wee bit antisemetic. I’d prefer to defend our own Jewish citizens rather than foreigners who disrupt our society.
Simply look at what happened when actual Palestinians protest against Iranian-backed Hamas. They were tortured and killed just recently. https://www.nysun.com/article/anti-hamas-protests-at-gaza-subside-after-would-be-leaders-assassinated-as-collaborators
So you think the appropriate response is to murder tens of thousands of children and civilians?
Complete crap. Poor analogy and logically confused.
Even if someone was murdering her family that someone isn’t the US.
Stupid reply.
Under the Constitution, they at least have the right to speak and write op-eds.
Yes and no. As Justice Robert Jackson famously observed, "our Constitution is not a suicide pact." Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? Or Soviet students demonstrating for communism? A student visa is a privilege, not a right. And Hamas is a terrorist organization that raped and murdered innocents, and held hostage and brutalized Americans.
Do you know that Jackson's quote is from his minority (losing) opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)?
He wanted to uphold a Chicago ordinance that punished speech "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance." Sounds like cancel culture or something the UK uses to arrest people complaining about school administration.
Maybe you should catch up on Constitutional Law before you comment on it.
Your analogies are also ridiculous.
Maybe you should read Jackson's intelligent dissent before you spout off.
You minimize the facts and ignore Jackson's wisdom that: "Because a subject is legally arguable, however, does not mean that public sentiment will be patient of its advocacy at all times and in all manners. So it happens that, while peaceful advocacy of communism or fascism is tolerated by the law, both of these doctrines arouse passionate reactions. A great number of people do not agree that introduction to America of communism or fascism is even debatable. Hence many speeches, such as that of Terminiello, may be legally permissible but may nevertheless in some surroundings be a menace to peace and order. When conditions show the speaker that this is the case, as it did here, there certainly comes a point beyond which he cannot indulge in provocations to violence without being answerable to society."
I'm sure most sane people agree that: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
Ok, you're an authoritarian. We disagree.
You realize that the arguments in favor of "cancel culture" on campus were the same - "we have to cancel this speech because it will cause disorder." It's also used as a justification for the censorship seen in The Twitter Files.
Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.
hey, the point is they aren't citizens. Go protest in your own country. We have plenty of protesting to go around without her.
Are you this foolish in real life? I am hardly an authoritarian and believe that any American has the right to believe and say whatever he or she wants. But speech has been recognized in extreme cases to cross the line in incite to violence or riot and even you must recognize that as do most state criminal codes. And if foreign students organize campus riots, destruction or deprivation of the rights of American students based solely on their religion, they have no business studying at an American university
OK, you're a Jew hater. We see that.
There's a lot of lack of self-awareness on display here.
I had a guy yesterday tell me that keying a Tesla is guaranteed by the first amendment ..
You are aware of the fact that minority opinions in Supreme Court cases carry absolutely zero legal weight, right? What kind of legal point can be made by citing a minority opinion in ANY Supreme Court case?
What the heck are you babbling about? Jackson's quote is well known and cited. And minority opinions often later become majority opinions. Chevron, anyone? Not to mention many others.
"Would we have allowed German students espousing Nazi precepts? "
Of course we DID. The German Bund, including some students openly supported Hitler and NAZIism up until WWII started. SCOTUS ruled that American NAZIs had Freedom of Speech and could parade through Skokie, Illinois (home to many Holocaust survivors). They never did, but the ruling showed that Hate Speech= Free Speech (as long as the line to imminent violence is not crossed).
The US is not at War with Hamas (may even be selling them weapons); we recently made al-Julani (TERRORIST HEADCHOPPER leader of one of the ISIS offshoots, the CIA's armies) the Head of Syria.
As Taibbi and JD Vance made clear America has different values from Europe (and from Israel). Americans have (or had) essential liberties enshrined in the Constitution. We are (were) not afraid of people speaking up and dissenting from official narratives handed down from the federal government (Covid killed that). If we were officially at war with Hamas, arguably Hamas supporters should be deported. But we are not yet a Police State like Israel, though we seem to be headed that way, a slippery slope, since the Patriot Act.
Hamas held Americans citizens captive. And SCOTUS did not ever rule on the rights of foreign nationals to espouse their causes when we were at war with them. The Bund rallies pre-dated the war and Skokie was after it. And btw that war was the last one declared. Not happy with that but doesn't change the facts. Try a bit harder to make your point cogently. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We routinely target terrorists.
Those were citizens, right? Not visitors.
Citizens and IDF soldiers.
"Hamas held idiot Jewish supremacists from the US, who went to serve in the IDF" doesn't sound as persuasive though...
except they aren't US Citizens do it on spring break in Turkey
Thank you. A lot of traitors here trying to rewrite American history.
lol. Traitor - someone that has a different opinion. Go touch grass.
And let’s not forget where all of this has led over the last few years. Taking over public spaces, destruction of school property, extreme harassment of students if they disagree. Is it really that hard to show some humility and gratitude toward a country that has welcomed you? This is a difficult line to draw but when “opinions” lead to harassment and bullying and violence - and we’ve seen this happening frequently on campuses in recent years - then what’s to be done?
We are supposed to believe that when speech alone is not persuasive enough to get them what they want, they also have the right to harass, intimidate, and demand attention. It’s all free speech, right?
Sorry, Thomas. This Substack is infested with people desperate to sacrifice their freedoms. I’m hoping they leave soon.
LOL, your handle fits very well. At least tks for that bit of humor.
Hey, change-my-handle-so-I-can-escape-my-own-foolish-expressions, what this Substack has are a lot of folks with brains and a few vs with their dicks in their hands. You can leave any time. We are sticking around so that truth prevails.
It’s amazing that some here don’t see that our freedoms were in jeopardy after 12 years of Obama & Biden. Even when they read about the abuses & lies nothing changes in their minds. The civil rights of our own citizens were violated & the abuses were mind-numbing, but the only thing that bothers them is deporting non-citizens, who disrupt our own people.
It’s amazing how people assume so much with so little information.
Username checks out.
NO they don't . The Constitution protects the God given rights of US Citizens from the gov. or others. Especially the protection from Government. I suggest you read and reread the Constitution until you , if your are capable, understand what it means. Plus add the Federalist Papers to the reading list in order to understand further of how the Founding Fathers hashed out the final writing of the Constitution. Sad you and the likes of you think you now know better than the Founding Fathers who brought about the Greatest Nation the World has ever known even if we are only 250 years old. We will be lucky , with the likes of you , to last as long as the Romans did.
Such unnecessary nastiness. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case, and the extent to which visitors to our country can and should enjoy (some of) the rights and privileges of citizens, and to what extent. I suggest *you* read and re-read the case law interpreting the Constitution. Start here: Yick Wo v. Hopkins. This case does not limit the government’s power to deport, but it does state that non-citizens do enjoy certain rights under the Constitution. Yick Wo does not, on its own, resolve this issue of whether a person on a temporary visa may be deported for mere speech—I probably lean toward the negative on that point, but I understand the opposing view, even if it is not a shining example of our values—but it rather decisively rebuts your unfounded assertion that the Constitution only protects US citizens.
(P.S. As a lawyer, I’ve spent a fair bit of time reading and studying the Constitution, its history, and the law interpreting it. I lean hard libertarian, originalist, and textualist. And I also believe we are the beneficiaries of the greatest political and governmental experiment in history, brought forth by an extraordinary collection of people. I also believe the Constitution is “not a suicide pact,” and that there is a significant tension between rights such as free speech and the need to protect the republic from outright subversion; forget about visa visitors for a moment, this is even a problem with actual citizens. (We’re watching the UK go down that drain right in front of our eyes.) But I don’t think we get to a fair balance on the matter by trying to silence those with whom we disagree.
If you think my post is unnecessary nastiness what do you think about the F bombs now being thrown around by the democraps. ( nasty) .
SCUSA case law , as it's called, changes as time goes on , as has been the case many a time . Depends on just how the majority changes over time. AND it has changed and along with that opinions handed down have changed . Latest being the reverse of Abortion law.
Let the visa holder , who dislikes what the USA is today , go back to their country and say what ever they think they can get by with. They just can't do the same here as a guest on a visa . The Host , who happens to be President Trump at this time, has the authority to revoke that visa at any time . That right is vested in the Executive Branch via the Constitution and not the Judicial or Leg. branches. You being a Lawyer seem , like most lawyers, to be hard wired into thinking you are right. BS ( again nasty) . Maybe that makes you a good lawyer to argue for what ever side you represent but it doesn't make you right.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You apparently cannot have a civil conversation; as to my "rightness," I merely expressed my opinion, and specifically noted that there are other points of view. The irony of you accusing me of being hard-wired to think I am right is pretty rich, wouldn't you say? ;) Try re-reading your post to which I first replied; sounds pretty hard-wired and condescending to me.
Anyway, this discussion isn't about nastiness from other people; there is way too much of that to go around. Why attempt to justify your own by citing that of others not present, when no one here has treated you as disrespectfully as you have them? Do you actually think only Democrats hurl "F bombs"? Please. Why not try setting an example of not being that way?
Anyway, yes, Supreme Court case law [called "SCUSA case law" by whom?] can and does change over time. An excellent example is Roe v. Wade—>Dobbs. There are many others. But for now and the last 125+ years, Yick Wo has remained the law of the land. I noticed you had absolutely ZERO substantive response to the Yick Wo point, especially as it rebuts your categorical assertion that only US citizens have rights under the Constitution; you might want to re-read §1 of the 14A, which specifically uses the terms “citizen” and “person” differently. One can read that language to suggest that only due process rights extend to non-citizens, and not other rights such as 1A. I think that's a reasonable interpretation [again, I am not hard-wired to think only my view is correct; that appears to be your shortcoming], but so far we do not have the benefit of a definitive SCOTUS interpretation.
As I said, I understand the point of view that encourages a temporary visa holder to feel free to espouse their own opinions in their home country. I just think this case is a bit more nuanced than merely that point. It is not clear to me to what extent 1A rights might be extended *under the Constitution* to persons who are not citizens. I think honest, patriotic citizens can disagree on that issue.
I look forward to the courts ruling in favor of these students who've done nothing more than exercise their 1A rights, while all you Islamophobes sit there with egg on your faces.
Forgot about destruction of property, inciting violence and assaulting Columbia employees. Do you have a concussion, or is your memory bad? Or just more inconvenient facts?
Thank you!
So long as they haven't kicked the dog, guests in my house have the right to disagree with me without fear of being escorted to the door.
How about if they not only disagree with you ..but tell you that you are not allowed to have other guests of a certain background in your home or certain food products made in specific places??? And if you don't comply ...they will break your windows & spray paint your house...perhaps even camp out on your lawn with a bull horn.
So, you are a supporter of South African apartheid and the US's subjugation to the British empire. Got it.
You are strange. Are. You also trans?
Really? And if they trash your house, threaten your guests, and harrass you? And then make you pay for their attorneys so they can continue to do so?
What or whom did Ozturk trash, threaten or harass? Notwithstanding Rubio's general comments, nothing like that has emerged in the week since the arrest, and protest activities were pretty well covered at the time.
Id like to see her protest in her own country. We have enough problems without some student studying for a worthless PHD screeching
While she's here, this is her country.
It is not. She is not a citizen. Turkey is her home.
Yeah, right.
That’s not how citizenship works dude.
WRONG
Tell us you know nothing about student visas without telling us.
Rubio's comments were quite specific. She's outta here!
That's fine with him - he's a sanctimonious, virtue signaling Democrat with no common sense. I think he's just his real name is Tim Walz.
The woman simply co-authored a letter to the university president with zero threats in it. Your analogy about screaming atop our dining table is ludicrous.
This kind of statement is emblematic of Matt's complaint about the reporting on this "story." You cannot possibly know with certainty that co-authoring a letter is the only offense she has committed, for which her Visa has been revoked. There may be other allegations that the government is asserting, about which you have no detailed information, yet. Just because those allegations have yet to be reported publicly, does not mean that they don't exist.
Ask yourself this question: If the government had any evidence that this woman had violated the law, let alone supported terrorism, don't you think they would proudly disseminate it to prove their point?
Yes. And why these cases are of such concern. The overwhelming majority of these comments are not only unintelligent, they are just emotional diatribes. Which is the point of Taibbis recent article.
Not necessarily, at all. When lawyers are involved, there could be any number of explanations as to why there is no attempt by the federal government to try her case "in public" in the way in which you may be familiar.
Care to make a wager?
That's the point, man! If there is sonething, there...by all means!
If not, this is unacceptable
That’s it? That’s all she did? Do you know her background & all of her writing & comments? Her activities?
There are laws. If people break them then they can be prosecuted. I don’t see that she broke any laws.
Is there any evidence that Ozturk, the disappeared one, stood on America's dining table and screamed or otherwise did anything wrong? I have seen nothing presented by the government that suggests she did. Do you have information otherwise?
"The disappeared one" -- I see you've gotten today's memo....
Yeah. They delivered it with my cash payment . . .
What else would you call someone grabbed up by masked ICE agents and whisked to an out of state detention center with no charges being filed and held incommunicado? "The disappeared one" is absolutely what she is.
Yes, you definitely have the script. Every cliche.
ICE agents have to be masked because violent Dem mobs will doxx them and their wives and their children. This is so stupid, if she's 'disappeared' then how do you know where she is?
What's the word for tomorrow?
Yep. So silly to say that she's disappeared when she's only been stuffed in a cell somewhere in Louisiana for contributing to a wrong-think op ed. Louisiana is really nice this time of year too!
If you remove a non-citizen's right to free expression, then no one has a right to free expression anymore, including citizens. Without due process anyone can be made a "non-citizen".
Yep. You know those "naturalized" citizens? Aren't they kinda guests also? I mean, they do come from foreign countries. And maybe those who were born here might have foreign born parents who have some questionable paperwork on file. Maybe we should start including them in our lists.
Wow what a piece of un-American shit
If you did not read Thunder's comment with sarcasm, then I will just say it appears to present sarcastically. If you think the sarcastic read of the comment is un-American, then that is a whole different story.
Oh yeah I didn’t even think to read it sarcastically. I’m afraid my sense of humor is disappearing as of late.
Totally feel that. I had that same gut reaction too, at first. Can't let them take our humor though, so stay strong!
Lick that boot
Just takin out the trash.
Interesting how worked up the US establishment gets over criticism of the doings of one (and only one) foreign country. Even criticism of US foreign policy actions are fine, unless they relate ot one (and only one) foreign country.
You mean Turkey, of course? Invaded and forcibly occupied N Cyprus since 1974 - yet not a peep from "the US establishment". More recently invaded, occupies northern Syria. Still, not a peep. Routinely bombs, slaughters Kurds in their undisputed homeland - not a word of protest. Why not?
Oops, sorry, maybe you mean China? Invaded, destroyed, slaughtered, occupied Tibet for many decades - yet "the US establishment" is silent. Herds millions of Uyghurs into forced labor concentration camps. But not a peep. Obvious evidence of nefarious conspiracy!
Oh, perhaps you mean Pakistan? Forcibly deports millions of Afghan refugees, off-and-on shotting war with India over "occupied territory" of Kashmir? "The US establishment" seems to have no interest. Zionist conspiracy, obviously?
Shalom!
It's almost as if that one and only foreign country has MASSIVELY undue influence over the US Establishment, while the supporters of that one and only foreign country scream bloody murder when any OTHER foreign country (allegedly) tries to influence the US Establishment. Hmmm...
Look out!!! There's a joooooo behind the tree.
This feels like a bad interpretation of the reality of the situation. She co-authored an op-ed.
A US citizen set himself on fire for the cause of the Palestinian people and what’s happened to them before and since October 7th.
Deporting those taking advantage of the welfare system and other systems paid by hard working Americans is what Americans thought they were getting. Not people who co-authored a op-ed.
A mentally ill US citizen lit himself on fire for Hamas. Rioters on college campuses who ransack the place, paint swastikas on library walls and demand to be fed is what people are fed up with. If they're on F1 visas, let's walk them through the exit door.
She rioted, ransacked and painted swastikas on library walls??? Holy moly. Why didn't Marco tell us about this? That's weird. Maybe it just slipped his mind as he was imagining about how she lied on her visa application regarding coming to the US in order to protest against events which were to take place in the future.
What does this complete scarecrow of an argument have to do with the Ozturk case - the centerpiece of this article?
More like, a visitor invited to your home writes an article about how her school shouldn't sell Sabra since the people profiting from it are committing international war crimes and genocide.
Instead of disagreeing that Sabra is evil, you call Trump because you gave him a lot of money, and tell him to grab the zip ties and detain them without due process, and Marco Rubio says "any words against Sabra are words against jews, which is anti-semitism, which means you are an international security threat".
That will stop everyone from trying anything like this again you think to yourself... without realizing that you just made half the world not want to come to your dinner parties anymore, and even your regular tax paying neighbors are like "fuck that".
Except she did none of these things. How is speaking out against another country, Isreal, which is not the US btw, any sort of illegal activity??? Newsflash, it’s not. This heavy handed approach should scare everyone. As was demonstrated with the Jan 6 detainees, government departments should not be trusted, and will bend the law anyway they see fit to punish those they choose to.
*Your* home is *your* property. Who exactly owns the US? Whose property is it exactly? Who gets to say who can come and who has to go? Marco Rubio? What an infantile analogy.
For Hamas? Not the innocent women and children without food water or somewhere safe to escape the bombings or get medical care when hurt?
When was the last time anybody voted for Hamas?
How many of the Palestinians suffering today were even born the last time an election was had or were able to vote?
What percentage Hamas win by?
I wonder if your defense of the murderous actions of the Israeli government is because of religion?
You have a right to ask any visitor to leave your house, because it's your house (though you don't have a right to kick them on their way out, if all they've done is say things you disagree with).
But if others who live there don't speak up, they must not really care about ideas being expressed freely in that house, and they're making a foolish bet that they'll always agree with you.
Oh, and if you're making money from having people visit, you're also being a thin-skinned economically-foolish snowflake for asking them to leave.
"Making money"LOL, 10 to 1 it's USAID IE my tax dollars . Why should I pay for a Visa holder to come into my house and berate my house? Follow the money IE Thanks a million for Elon Musk and DOGE via President Trump the NGO's IE our Tax dollars are going to be stopped from paying for our own destruction.
I see so making money off them is a reason now.
I want them deported. NOT bc of Israel or antisemitism— but bc they are snotty, antiAmerican, entitled brats studying here to plot our demise. And not even appreciate it! They can wait for their due process in a holding cell just like Americans do. Does no one on the left know what a country jail is for? If they dont like it- go home!!
Nice to know you don't support basic civil liberties.
When they come for you, remember when you didn't stand up for someone else when you had the chance, snowflake.
Says the flack for the caliphate.....
Genocide Enthusiast says, "Human rights are only for people I agree with!"
Unfortunately, Genocide Enthusiast is an idiot who doesn't seem to understand that his team won't be in charge forever.
I'm laughing at the thought of Stanley spouting off in the Islamic Republic of What[the-fuck-istan.
I'm laughing that you think you are any different than they are.
You share the same values. Maybe YOU are the one out of place.
Over here in America, we support free speech, even when we disagree with it, because that's what principles look like.
Glad I could point out something for you that I was able to easily understand in civics class. You know back, in middle school.
I bet you miss Stalin. You guys really have a lot in common.
LIE on a Visa application as to the purpose of your request for a Visa and expect to be allowed to stay . BS you lied you get deported with no expectation of ever receiving another Visa. Unless the democraps get back into the White House.
Seems you are rooting for total genocide of the Jews. Seems we have fought a World War to stop just such a thing from happening . If you don't know it was World War II.
"from the river to the sea" . Do tell us just what that means since your such a brilliant (fool).
Do tell us what it means when Israel's zionist leadership says it:
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party
Netanyahu: "And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
https://x.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1748080171171619192
Being called an antisemite by someone cheering the systematic extermination of an entire people doesn't sting too much, champ.
Tell me again how violating one group's human rights somehow protects another group's human rights, though. You're adorable.
You're free to leave with sweet Rumeysa. Bye!!
I think the genocide is indeed happening, but not to the Jews.
caliphate boy says what?
He says killing children is wrong.
How about you?
only certain children. That's what caliphate fans like you believe. It's ok. Just admit that's what you believe.
You clearly didn’t read my full statement. When an American is arrested they are held in the country jail while they wait for their due process. Law professors and their nit wit students have no idea what they are talking about.
I didn't have to, once I got to the spot where you were whining about how people who say things you don't like should be deported.
I feel the need to keep pointing this out - what happens when a different flavor of thin skinned, authoritarian snowflake is in control, and they don't like what you have to say?
Jesus, you are a dumb as any tech censor.
Why do you feel the need to attack people as if this were Twitter or BlueSky? The tone of your responses diminishes the quality of your arguments.
Why do I feel the need to attack thin skinned authoritarian snowflakes cheering censorship in the substack that is explicitly anti-censorship?
Probably because I even have to answer this very, very, VERY simple question.
Your inability to understand that comments calling for censorship and for masked government agents to disappear people just like Stalin did goes against everything this substack stands for diminishes the quality of your argument.
If she was a US Citizen then your debate would hold water. She's not . She is a visa holder . Visa holder who's visa has a stated purpose for the requested visa . She can't change her mind and now claim the visa is for protest and occupying Campus buildings etc which is what she did. Visa revoked , Visa holder removed . All legal actions by the Executive Branch . No review by judicial branch . It is not under their branch of the Gov. to have a say . Visa holder is nothing more than an allowed visitor by the Executive Branch.
YOU cannot inject extra power to the judicial just because some liberal lawyer thinks they can.
You seem nice.
You're ok. You have your inhaler, right?
Do you have a crush on me?
Spending a lot of time stalking me in my comments, and then basically saying nothing. You sure want my attention!
Sorry, baby, but I'm taken. I'm sure you're great, though! You won't be lonely forever!
be more creative. copy/pasting is boring. Do better and take your ritalin.
I want them deported for the same reasons you do - we should not allow foreign enemies in our midst. But jail is for when we have probable cause to believe someone has committed a serious crime. The constitution applies universally and this woman had the right to due process before having her visa revoked, it's un-American to bypass this with a secret, arbitrary process and then have masked, plainclothes enforcers grab people off the street.
Exactly this. If there is credible reason to believe she has supported terrorism, then due process will bear that out. But there is no such evidence. This is all an encroachment of all of our rights. If they remove free speech rights for the least of us, then it's not long until citizens face the same removals.
If the allegations are truthful, bypassing public due process sure makes it hard to prove. Seems unwise at best.
How many of you "due processors" complained when Obama's DOE "dear colleague" letter (under threat of loss of federal funding) forced colleges to set up Kangaroo Title IX courts to railroad scores of young men for "harassment?" Not many.
Due process only counts when you hate Jews.
I still complain about that. The federal government is too powerful and it has been for a long time.
😳
I definitely have been complaining about that since it happened. That was a huge change for the worse.
If you read my comment again, you'll find that I'm pointing out the fact that if you don't do things in public, the facts of your defense are not public.
That's a pretty decent analog as both are vile systems of punishing disfavored people extrajudicially.
"I want them kicked out because I don't like them." At least you admit it, but maybe consider what's best for the nation and its future. Perhaps during the next admin they'll find a reason to deport someone you care about because someone doesn't like them. I mean, my god, do you not remember the J6 horseshit? Same coin, opposite side.
Excellent comment. Yes!
I am thinking about what’s best for the country. Are you privy to the state of Europe at the moment? Europeans have sounded like just like you for the past 20 years and now they’re crying they let their homeland be taken over inbreeding jihadists collecting welfare.
Here in America the Bill of Rights is for Americans. SCOTUS has already protected POTUS’s Constitutional given power to control the border, immigration and deportation as he sees fit.
You are conflating uneducated migrants crossing the border illegally to a highly educated woman with a visa, who happened to write an article against genocide. I hope you open your heart to understand the difference and not let hate for the “other” consume you.
Why all the hatred? She wrote an article that did not support genocide. I don’t support it either. Am I next? BTE, I voted for Trump three times, but don’t agree with this.
YES!!!!!
I assume that many or most of the commenters here were motivated to subscribe in part because of Matt's and Walter's opposition to Big Tech and other NGO and government "disinformation" censorship. I know I was.
It's amazing to see how many of you now take the position of "Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee" (in the late great Nat Hentoff's words).
Not only does Ozturk have First Amendment rights to write what she wrote and otherwise express her opinion, the clauses in the INA which the government relies on to permit the Secretary of State to arbitrarily and summarily deport someone without any standards are unconstitutionally vague and violate the due process rights which Ozturk also has.
Trump's own sister, the late federal district court judge Maryanne Trump, ruled that way in Masseau v. Reno, 915 F.Supp 681 (1996)!!!!
Beyond that, it's astounding that so many commenters here don't believe that a right like free speech is natural, universal, inalienable, given by God as the Founders believed, but something doled out by the state according to arbitrary status distinctions like citizenship or residency unrelated to any real national interest.
Why should Americans care if Ozturk wrote that we should boycott and stop aid Israel, beyond having a First Amendment right to read her perspective and consider it? Because it's not just about her right to speak, it's about we citizens' right to hear her. That's an underappreciated aspect of these deportations. They want only one message coming through.
"......according to arbitrary status distinctions like citizenship or residency unrelated to any real national interest." You lost me when you claimed citizenship is an arbitrary distinction.
Also Judge Barry's decision was reversed by the Third Circuit. 91 F.3d 416. Nice try, no sale.
It was reversed on procedural not substantive grounds. From Alito's opinion: "We do not reach the merits of the constitutional questions decided by the district court."
Her critique of the provision of the INA was not addressed and remains standing.
Again, you either believe rights are natural, universal, inalienable as the Founders did, or you want an oppressive regime for people who visit.
Clearly you need to re-read the 3rd Circuit's decision. Judge Barry found a provision of the law unconstitutional. The Circuit Court found she lacked jurisdiction to even hear the matter. Are you contending now that the has been found unconstitutional.
Visiting any country is a privilege not a right. Try going, even to a Western European country or the UK and violating their speech codes. Not to mention advocating for Christianity in an Islamic satrapy or for freedom in Cuba of Venezuela.
No, I'm not contending that it's been found unconstitutional since Trump's opinion is not binding. I'm saying it's the only judicial opinion on the subject, and it's correct and persuasive. The law is too vague and arbitrary to satisfy due process requirements. It's tiring arguing law with a non-lawyer.
I don't care about other countries rules. Why not mention China and North Korea too?
I'm in favor of the (previous) US standard of free speech and alien rights. You are not, since you agree with Jackson's dissent in Terminiello, which would bring in a European or UK standard for free speech.
You are hardly an able advocate if your arguments are always this sloppy.
I made a lot of money
@Thomas The argument that it is “tiring to discuss the case with a non-lawyer” was unpersuasive, thank you for continuing discussion with Bruce.
Citizenship is an arbitrary distinction if we consider free speech an inalienable right. If free speech is only ever something a nation state grants on a whim, we have no right to object when governments like ours dabble in censorship, or when totalitarian regimes punish speech crimes with draconian sentences.
It's been legitimately shocking, and not a little bit depressing, to watch how quickly my fellow Taibbi commentors went from quoting Marcus Aurelius to re-enacting the droogs beating the shit out of a hobo scene from Clockwork Orange. Many, many times I have expressed a profound willingness and hope that elements of MAGA and people like myself on the old-school left could form a coalition to wrest our country away from the neoliberal/neocon failsons currently piloting it into the abyss. I now see that we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.
And seriously, if I have to suffer through one more "a guest in your home who is annoying" analogy I'm gonna lose my actual shit. Where did my enlightened warriors and "I'll defend to the death your right to say it" people go? Trump wins the election and y'all turn into a bunch of HOA Karens? Jesus, listen to yourselves! It's fucking embarrassing.
For what it’s worth I think a lot of people on the right are alarmed at trumps Middle East policy. However you are dealing with nationalists at heart and feel a real sense of betrayal that many of these students would just as likely hate on their adoptive country in another op-ed. Still, they might be deporting the immigrants but they are still trying to crack down on the rights of citizens too. It’s ridiculous the side that has been upset about hate speech laws, rightfully so, is doing the same for under the guise of anti-semitism.
Exactly. I'm totally game to make space for the right's nationalism, even if I don't exactly share it. I just think, were I a staunch nationalist, my inclination would be that the US figures out how to stop being Israel's bitch, instead of clutching pearls on their behalf.
AMEN!
This is the beginning of a discussion of whether we should accept bigoted immigrants. If we were attracting people on F1 student visas that wanted to bring benign cultural traditions and ideas (as most legal immigrants do), that's what we want. We are also attracting and tolerating immigrants destroying property, assaulting LEOs and employees at colleges and targeting and inciting violence against another religious group.
We shouldn't be accepting this. These imported bigots not only do not want to integrate and adopt our values, they're attempting to impose their values on the rest of us.
Oh no, she said we should boycott Israel, we can’t have that in the land of the free!
If your values can't stand up to a bunch of foreign college kids, sounds like your values fucking suck.
If I were able to visit a Moslem country, i would need to conform to their standards of modesty and behavior. But the US has allowed people even to emigrate who have no intention of integrating. It’s unwise.
A visitor on a work or student visa does not have the same rights as a citizen. I was vetted before being allowed to emigrate to Israel.
💯
Ozturk’s case is not based on ‘free speech’ but rather ‘national security’ - it’s there where her First Amendment rights are null.
That's a shitty, laughable, and if we look at recent history, wildly prone to abuse justification. I'd argue, probably more effectively, that the United States' national security interests are better served by removing Israel's dick out of our mouth, at which point most of you would go back to whining about guests and dining tables and shit.
please stop with the projection of your homoerotic fantasies.
Vague national security claims don't trump the 1st amendment. So far, the government hasn't provided any justification for her detention and visa revocation.
Curiosity as to the government's justification for her detention and visa revocation is valid. At least you admit that it is possible that there is something more than an op-ed that caused her arrest. But, if eventually you get an answer to that, and the evidence is compelling that she is guilty of more than disagreeable speech, where will you stand?
I will have to see what that justification is. There is little reason for Rubio not to explicitly state publicly the best reasons for her visa revocation given the nature of immigration court proceedings, so I'm skeptical he's got an ace in the hole. I will be watching the case with interest.
Thomas—Thank you for your analysis and I agree with much of it. Would it make any difference to your views that the statute addressed in Massieu v. Reno (D.N.J 1996) 915 F. Supp. 681 was sec. 241 ((a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA enactment, which is so vague that it doesn’t describe any forbidden conduct at all?
Whereas presumably Ozturk was detained under the endorse-terrorism provision.
From the court's opinion (Barry, J.):
“The relevant deportation statute, 241(a) (4) (C) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’), provides simply that ‘[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable’.”
By contrast, the endorse-terrorism provision (the codified version at 8 U.S. Code sec. 1182 (a)(3)(B) (VII)) states that an alien who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” is deportable.
In Massieu, the proposed deportee was a Mexican academic, whose politician brother had been assassinated in Mexico. Massieu himself wasn’t charged with doing anything but simply entering into & being in this country.
Agreed, the U.S. govt has to follow procedures, like notice and a hearing. But the statutory language in the endorse-terrorism provision is entirely more specific than the statute addressed in Massieu.
I don't know. They are probably using everything they think might work. I assume it was 8 USC § 1227(a) 4)(C)(i) because in that part it's State's sole decision and they put that puppet Rubio in front of the cameras to say he made the decision.
I would say the "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" is also too vague and vague as applied.
If I say I want a united Ireland am I subject to being found to endorse the Real IRA, which is on the terrorist list?
Everything about this case is wrong, but what makes it so scary is the manner in which these people are being taken. Being surrounded by anonymous, masked, thugs and hustled in an unmarked car is an act of terrorism, designed to intimidate those watching. There was no reason not simply to have asked the woman to please come for an interview on her immigration status. What could she have done? She would certainly have complied, as would Khalil. If they had not, that defiance would itself have been justification for what the government wants. Instead they’re testing the waters by using illegal means, and those tests, if the attitude of readers here, and in other media are any indicator, show that a shocking proportion of the public has an appetite for fascism. People are so eager to demonize these students they believe the lies they’re being told in the classic manner of a lynch mob. No other comparison is honest.
This is chilling.
Kind of like when the Biden cabal dispatched FBI SWAT teams to arrest elderly political opponents such as Stone and Navarro or grandmothers opposing abortion or moms who objected to porn being forced on their kids in school. But now you're weeping when a terror supporter gets pinched?? Cry me a river to the sea.
ALL of it is wrong, no matter which side does it. This is not a left/right issue; it's a human issue.
Include Brian Malinowski, Little Rock airport administrator. Shot and killed by ATF in predawn raid of his home on suspicion of buying and selling too many firearms. All they had to do was talk to him. Outrage for foreign students, crickets for american citizens.
This is exactly the point Bruce, you're saying it's wrong to send FBI SWAT teams to arrest elderly political opponents, but fine to arrest students on the street in what looks like South American junta thugs. Biden bad, Trump good. Try for one fucking second to be bipartisan. Both sides are corrupt assholes. There is no right side. I also find it comically hypocritical that you all are celebrating government becoming smaller and more lean, and then cheering on federal agents nabbing people off the fucking street.
Why do all these comments about "kinda like J6 cry me a river" suppose that we weren't equally pissed (more so even) about the J6 detentions?
I screamed from the rafters to all my "good liberal friends" about the injustice of that and why we should ALL care. They gave me the same stupid horseshit answers about "supporting terrorism" that those defending the "hamas" revocations do.
You guys are both (you and my idiot liberal friends) the ones saying the same hypocritical shit about the guilt of these so-called terrorist supporters when it's precisely the readers here at Racket who've been paying attention to this and being consistent about opposition to this kind of government abuse of power.
Stop making excuses- you're the one who sounds like the J6 pearl clutchers. That was never us.
If you can show me a few of your protestations I'll be impressed. But you on the left either remained silent when the Biden Cabal weaponized Justice and the FBI - or cheered them on. Few if any on the right applaud using the FBI as a hit squad. But we certainly do differentiate between repression of American CITIZENS and foreigners who are here at our sufferance and are spitting on our hospitality and largess.
I can't "show you my timeline" of outrage going back in comments sections for the past half dozen years, man. I can show you my many years of receipts to Racket, and Greenwald, and Hedges, who have BEEN publishing the articles I've shared about this to everyone who tried to say otherwise: https://scheerpost.com/2023/03/05/chris-hedges-lynching-the-deplorables/
Please just entertain for a moment, the idea that many of the people upset now were just as upset then. Over J6 lawfare, over COVID authoritarianism, over the weaponization against Trump. Just as upset over people shrugging off the twitter files Censorship Industrial Complex.
Being the "targeted" ones usually means you're on the side of truth against power, and that is 100% true for many people in this country (particularly those without fully naturalized citizenship) who are speaking up about how Israel needs to be sanctioned/stopped/divested from.
It was propaganda that had people convinced the J6ers were all "insurrectionists" that deserved it- and it's propaganda that makes some think all college kids against Israeli are foaming at the mouth-hamas acolytes.
Not attacking you personally but many of us were well aware of the bullshit propaganda put out and lapped up like vomit by the supine media flacks re Covid and J6. I was a very early supporter of the Great Barrington Declaration and I am well aware that many of the campus demonstrators ar non-violent, even if they're stupidly supporting terrorists. But stupidity isn't criminal. It just makes it easier to be a Democrat.
So your argument is not that the tactics themselves are bad, it only depends whether you like the people using them? Or that censorship is cool as long as you get to choose who is being censored? Or Totalitarianism is good as long as you're in control of it? All of the above? I'd be careful with that. It tends not to end well.
Nope. Try reading it. It was a criticism only of the liberal pukes and their wailing over this case when they were silent when Biden's cabal was doing it. I don't like any strong arm tactics. Using SWAT teams on Tren de Aragua - fine. On otherwise law abiding people. Never.
Without comment on the underlying issue, this is in fact a more gentle approach than the Federal government has recently used to arrest people. I think it is safe to say that those who deplore this type of behavior were silent when the FBI arrested non-violent pastors using heavily armed swat teams during pre-dawn raids in front of their small children , or for non-violent political figures arrested by small armies and advance notice given to CNN. It saddens me and frankly makes me less sympathetic that people only notice the excesses when the opposition is in power.
This is not a subscriber-only article, but it's safe to say the vast majority of people here are subscribers. I think it's also safe to say that, at least here, those who deplore this type of behavior by the Trump admin also deplored the Biden administration's abominable record. What seems to be true is the opposite, that a significant number of people who supported freedom of expression and speech when Biden was cracking his authoritarian whip are now defending the Trump admin's use of that whip, or at least trying to whatabout their way around the issue.
Nope. Not a blanket defense. Just saying that foreign students do not have untrammeled rights. Still we should not be deporting people for writing articles or engaging in non-violent acts of protest.
I think that is a fair point, and one of the reasons I like Matt Taibbi.
I doubt that's true of the subscribers, but then again, I don't know what you mean by "a significant number." Count me as one who would be opposed to what has occurred in this case IF the ONLY cause for her arrest is an op-ed. I suspect there's more to it. We shall see, hopefully.
How do you know "those who deplore this type of behavior" were silent?
One of the few cool-headed and evenhanded comments in this discussion. Thanks, Ed.
You'd be wrong. Some of us have principles and reject partisanship.
Kind of terrifying how many people here think censorship and stifling free speech is good, actually.
I sort of thought valuing free speech was something we shared here. Isn't that the point of the Twitter Files?
Seems to me that is exactly what the Biden administration was doing for 4 years. At the same time they were letting unvetted aliens into the country in large numbers. Don't think you had anything to say about that at the time.
That's because you are a fucking idiot. Why do you think I'm a subscriber here, you fucking dumb shit?
Stanley, I agree with much of what you're saying, but you're losing me with your vulgar insults.
he is a true vulgarian.
Stanley one trick. "Youse is an idiot. " Comically boring.
Thin-skinned authoritarian snowflake has one trick: crying for the manager.
"People shouldn't be allowed to say things I don't like!" weeps Karen.
You still haven’t provided any evidence that you were doing anything but cheering for the Biden regime’s depravation of rights and harassment of US citizens exercising their constitutional rights and peaceful (not mostly peacefully) doing so. Until such time, I will assume that you are the typical hypocritical pant wetting leftist.
Other than being a founding member of this Substack you are enjoying?
Are YOU paying for your subscription? I do.
You haven't provided any information saying you aren't a child molester, so I guess I'll just assume that's true.
Your reasoning here is moronic and self-serving.
Kinda like yours. It would be mean to suggest that you put your body where your mouth is and go to Gaza & offer your body as a human shield or as part of a Hamas harem.
Huh?
I think there is an underlying question as to whether non-citizens enjoy the same free speech rights as citizens.
They are called "human rights", nazi
LOL, then go to Gaza and tell Hammas that.
The thing about having principles is that they apply all the time.
If they don't, they are just called "rationalizations", Karen.
Deflection. The topic is about the human rights of those on US soil.
Curious if there are any evaluations (couldn't find any with a brief search) of which countries are upholding Article 19. It seems like the list of countries that would score highly would be very short these days
The UN has no enforcement powers unless all of the Security Council unanimously agrees. And the US always protects Israel (otherwise our politicians would get nothing from AIPAC, and would have to deliver on their promises to constituents, a scary thought-- sounds like work?)
Only those of you who support the Executive branch's attempts to deport those condemning the Israeli government's actions (which frankly comes off as Islamophobic/bigoted against Arabs, btw) are asking that "underlying question." The rest of us, who aren't blinded by pro-zionist bias, already know the answer: YES, non-citizens are also protected by 1A.
Not a first amendment issue.
islamophobic!! Drink!!!!
It’s not chilling at all. When she applied for a visa she was informed at that time what was expected of her behavior while she visited the USA. She ignored these provisions so she’s out of luck.
It is possible that the federal government has information about her activities that Matt Taibbi does not. It's not necessary that someone be charged with a crime to have their visa revoked. All they have to do is violate the terms and conditions of their visa. It is entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State to make that decision.
On one hand, I would like to more about her: how old is she, what did she do before getting her visa, who is funding her (USAID money?), did she lie on her visa application, what exactly was she studying? On the other hand, has Rubio & company done anything wrong, or is he just doing the best that he can.
This feels like a media event, just like the Signal flare-up. If only we had laws, instead of judges.
Then the government should show us. Instead, it’s being given a list of undesirable by the Israel lobby and deporting people on their behalf with no due process.
You have no idea how the government is ascertaining or determining who has violated the terms and conditions of their visas.
Yes I do, because they’re stupid enough to take credit for it. It’s Canary Mission and Betar
Seriously? I am stunned at the toxic vitriol in these comments.
She didn't stand on any tables, she didn't scream anywhere that I've seen - and if she did, so what? Sticks and stones. She co-authored an Op-Ed in a student newspaper, a year ago.
They came for her masked up and unmarked and kept her incommunicado...
holy shit. WTF?
Foreign students pay full freight and are what's keeping these schools going. They obviously do appreciate what's here, that's why they're here. What was here, anyway.
I don't recognize my country.
Another fool who was silent when the Justice Dept was weaponized by the Biden cabal.
Boy, a lot of assumptions there. I was not silent on Biden's likewise dangerous crappola.
By saying "I don't recognize my country," you suggest otherwise. Along with your paean to the virtues and benefits of foreign students.
What's unrecognizable is that at least the readers in the comments then WERE opposed to the Biden admin weaponizing the government.
Now the comments are filled with zionist shills claiming that either this is totally fine OR claiming that somehow people who didn't "fight hard enough" for the J6 defendants deserve the shoe being on the other foot.
You sound like they did then, just replace MAGA with Hamas. "whah whah, poor trump supporters getting what they deserve".
Stop saying this. You sound like a paid shill. None of us crying about this now were silent then. It's all fucked and we're the ones being consistent while you sound exactly like the lib-tards claiming the J6 people "shouldn't have been there if they weren't trying to illegally overturn an election".
Being at the capital didn't make one a terrorist and neither does writing a oped to divest from fucking Israel.
Don't assume that everyone is a partisan hack. I, for one, call out government overreach no matter which party is doing it.
It's easy for us consumers of news and opinions to believe we know all that law enforcement agencies know. I was a public affairs reporter myself many moons ago and covered numerous court cases involving the actions of police investigators. Let's see what comes to light in the days to come. Rest assured that we civilians do not get all the details as they emerge in real time. Nor should we in many cases, as ongoing investigations often do require controlled release of information. There could be - - and I'm going to say, probably are - - many more things to know about Ozturk's connections and activities. Just my hunch, keeping in mind also that she is not a citizen of the United States and is here provisionally.
But, yes, keeping up the pressure lets our officials know we aren't going to wander off and forget.
If there were more to the story of these students, the Administration would be screaming it from the rooftops. It's very suspicious that they're not.
Not necessarily so, at all. You're making an inference, and, the odds of that inference being correct are no greater than a coin-flip.
Good point. It seems odd that in the target-rich environment of students on foreign visas expressing their opinions, sometimes quite forcefully, the State Dept would choose people who on the surface seem sympathetic. A green card holder with a pregnant wife, and a young woman who supposedly only wrote an op-ed. It’s quite possible there’s more to these stories than has been initially reported.
You said the quiet part out loud. Foreign students pay full freight and that’s what’s keeping these schools going.
Foreign students and foreign donations—especially from Qatar. Even the Palestinian Authority donates to American Universities. They most likely use money we and the EU give them to donate back to fund programs that benefit them.
"Foreign students pay full freight and are what's keeping these schools going." - lol, who cares.
I just unsubscribed from Ken Klippenstein's Substack. Over time I found his reporting more ideological than I originally thought. Another reason was the absolute vitriol on his message boards. This has been spicy for a Racket article, but I assure you it can be a lot more hateful and irrational than what we're seeing here.
Rubio is right. These non-citizen students are guests, and as horrible as the Gaza war is, Hamas started this renewed war on October 7, 2023 and anyone supporting Hamas are supporting terrorists.
What we should be asking is why the countries closest in proximity to Gaza, like Jordan and Egypt, refuse to take in Palestinian refugees.
Could it be that Palestinians have repeatedly voted for terrorists to lead them even though their leaders are hypocrites who enjoy the rich life (i.e., Arafat and Hamas leaders) while their own people starve. Could it be that these countries don’t want any more dumb terrorists causing violence and pushing hatred in their countries?
"Free speech is only for people I agree with," said the idiot, fundamentally unable to understand that his friends won't always be in control of the government.
Full of sound and fury. She has the full right to speak in support of Hamas. In Turkey. If their dear leader lets her.
You got two bricks for brains
Hopefully you already know that 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians and their offspring forced out from Palestine over the years by Zionists. Most are well assimilated into Jordan.
However, some Palestinians attempted to overthrow the Jordanian king in 1970, 71 and he announced "no more Palestinians will be accepted into Jordan". Egypt has a smaller number but also fears effects on national security (much as Americans fear effects of illegal aliens). By international law, Palestinians have the same Right of Return as Jews.
A better question would be why force the Palestinians from their homeland (roughly two thirds of Palestinians already live outside of Palestine/ Israel)? Genetically Palestinians are essentially the same as indigenous Jews there, but religion is a toxic force.
How did she support Hamas? Why do you conflate criticisms of Israel with supporting Hamas? Are you that thin skinned and dishonest?
Why should the USA allow all of these extremist students funded by anti USA funfing to come to the country and work full time against our country. ? wonderful that t eh Trump administration is taking a stand. the Dems have lost it completely
It's called free speech.
It's kind of a thing in these parts. Maybe you should check it out.
free speech has limitations in every country in the world. not for propel who support america's enemies and want to destroy usa
"Free speech is only for people I agree with," said the profoundly stupid person. "Other countries have robust censorship programs, so we should also have them here," continued the idiot, not understanding that at some point, some other thin skinned authoritarian snowflake might be in charge of what gets censored.
You must be a dem. everyone who disagrees with you is an "idiot"
You must be a Stalinist, because you think everyone who disagrees with you should be censored and swept up by secret police.
Do you miss the KGB?
Yes as long as they are sweptwing up visa liars. Lie for a visa , get thrown out of the Country!
Sybil, just rock back and forth to self soothe.
You could make the same argument against Israelis and dual citizen Zionists, heavily funded by US taxpayers particularly the warfare on their behalf, which undermines what America has always been about. For most of our history, wisely pushed by our Founding Fathers, the US was an independent isolationist nation, blessed with abundant resources and we could easily trade for what little we need. Now we are a mafia state run since WWII (or before) by oligarchs, which sets up US puppet dictators, steals other countries' resources and calls it "American Democracy!" (Does sound nicer.)
She was not working against our country. The was working for it, just as anyone working against the Nazis in Germany was working for Germany.
Asking US to divest from Israel is not "working full time against our country." This is not the United States of Israel.
She's on a student visa not a protesting visa.
She's welcome to protest and observe Ramadan all she wants back in Turkey and the best of luck
I haven't seen the government's charges against Ozturk. Writing an opinion in the university newspaper is not a crime. This isn't about immigrants or foreign students doing anything illegal, this is really about any support for Palestinians is now being considered Antisemitism. This is about crushing free speech and dissent under the guise that we have foreign students 'infiltrating" our country and committing 'crimes" that are yet unproven.
"I haven't seen the government's charges against Ozturk.'
Nor are you in possession of all the information investigators have, more importantly. Let's see what details come to light.
John Adams Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 essentially survives for national security during War. Not clear how Marco Rubio has this power in peacetime (though Woodrow Wilson and FDR also used it just before war).
Possibly Adam's Sedition Act ("The Sedition Act made it illegal to make false or malicious statements about the federal government") will be brought back as well (it expired under Thomas Jefferson, the political opponent target of the Act)? Of course no one cares if you criticize the US federal government, o the law would be revised to make it illegal to criticize Israel.
The Sedition Act of 1918 forbidding the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt" (Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years for Sedition, along with hundreds of others). The Act was repealed after WWI ended, and those convicted had their sentences commuted. "Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer [infamous today for the Palmer Raids] waged a public campaign, not unrelated to his own campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, in favor of a peacetime version of the Sedition Act. He sent a circular outlining his rationale to newspaper editors in January 1919, citing the dangerous foreign-language press and radical attempts to create unrest in African American communities."-- wikipedia
It’s terrifying to see how little time and effort it took to manufacture consent on this. If the point of Racket News was to educate and empower its readers to fight for free speech than Matt is doing a terrible job based on these comments.
I'm concerned that Matt might suffer from "audience capture." Since he started to write about government- and NGO-prompted Big Tech censorship of "disinformation" during the Biden years, he attracted a right-wing audience.
Now that these former "free speech" advocates have shown themselves as xenophobic authoritarians under Trump, will he shade his writing to minimize Trump abuses or call them out at the cost of some subscriptions?
It seems to me the new timeline approach is one that's hard to game. The timelines I've read seem to be 'just the facts'. How is that pandering to a right-wing audience?
I'm not saying it is pandering, and looking at the facts before writing an opinion is understandable.
But at some point the facts will become undeniable, and will warrant a strong statement of opinion.
In this case Matt is being overly cautious based on a week of (no) evidence against Ozturk other than some writing and participation in petitions and meeting.
I'm okay with the timeline approach that never has a strong statement of opinion. To me, that's journalism.
I'd like to see him report on some Constitutional concepts that many commenters here are unaware of - for example, that aliens have substantial free speech and due process rights.
It's nauseating seeing these comments stating Ozturk had no free speech or due process rights.
It is right of Matt to wait for all the facts to come out before writing his opinion one way or the other; hence his travel plans, designed to aid in the search for information.
Exactly. It's the infamous Israel double-standard. When in reality, Matt is condemning violations of free speech no matter who's in power. Which is what a TRUE JOURNALIST should do. It's funny (sad) how those who praised Matt as a "real journalist" when he called out the Biden Admin's free speech violations, are now decrying him for doing the SAME THING with the current Admin.
lol, the pearl clutching is hilarious!
Not everyone views this as a "free speech" issue, despite it being presented this way.
Some of us see this as the govt having the right to revoke the visas of guests who support Hamas, a designated terror org that has killed and kidnapped American citizens.
Some people see "free speech" as the paramount value, even though people here on visas do not have the same rights as Americans and must swear to not support terrorist orgs as part of their visa applications; others prioritize the civil rights of Americans here to attend class sans harrassment and agree that it's against American interests to allow Hamas supporters an open door into our country.
It's a question of competing values, which is why we're all here arguing.
I respect and appreciate Matt, but don't need him to do my thinking for me.
If there were any evidence these people supported a terrorist organization this would be a pretty neat comment!!
I believe all these people are on record as supporters of Hamas and are affiliated with orgs that support Hamas and that cheered the 10/7 massacre and denounced Israel even before the bodies were cold and before the IDF even moved into Gaza.
There is evidence if you care to accept it in good faith.
I would accept evidence in good faith but your opinion is not evidence. I call it an opinion because you started it with “I believe” and there’s also no evidence of anything you just said.
“I believe” simply means I don't have total certainty, as I don't really devote much time to reading the writings of college "activists".
My thoughts are 1) these people seem to have written and protested in support of Hamas, a designated terror org, which is a possible visa violation; and 2) they all seem to be affiliated w "pro-Palestinian" orgs, who are all proud supporters of terrorism, which they call "uprising" or some other romantic term meant to whitewash murder.
I am happy to revise my opinion if I discover I was wrong, but I think these are all commonly recognized facts.
I haven’t seen any evidence of support for Hamas in any writings or in any news coverage. I don’t think it’s right to conflate pro-Palestinian views with terrorism, those lies are how the consent for this is manufactured. I want actual evidence and proof then I’ll shut up. It’s not right to do this without evidence and I would want that same courtesy extended to me if something like this happened to me. When you or anyone else has actual evidence let me know!
You sound boosted.
I don’t fucking get it. At least Greenwald has stayed true to himself
Or.... many of his subscribers are so blinded by their pro-zionist and/or Islamophobic biases, they are unable to see the historical nuance and context underlying those who support the Palestinian cause.
islamophobic! Drink again!!
To be fair, he's fighting against a propaganda juggernaut.
Oztuck degree was at Columbia thanks to the Fulbright Scholarship and she moved on to Tufts.
This is how it works when foreigners with a grudge attend elite Universities in America. The Tufts Community Union Senate passes three resolutions offered by the school’s Coalition for Palestine Liberation.
Who at Tufts is part of the Community Union Senate? What is their involvement with politics at the Tufts?
Tufts has a Coalition for Palestine Liberation, its member are from where? How many other Coalitions does Tufts have?
Are student there to learn or be activists? Appears both according to why the Fulbright Program came about. Yes, Dept of State oversees the Program.
The Fulbright Program is the flagship international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. Government and designed to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. The FP was established by Congress in 1949.
As a Program of the U.S. Department of State, citizen diplomacy in the content of strengthening international relations is central to the Fulbright Program. However, it has always been truly academic, with respect for the freedom and integrity with respect to politics that characterize the scholarly and intellectual discourse that emerge from the Program, both within and across national boundaries.
Schools and academic institutions have played an even more central role in receiving foreign participants such as giving them full access to mentors, free courses, libraries and laboratories. Furthermore, through designated foreign student advisers on campus, and voluntary community groups off campus, helping them adjust to new surroundings. Of special importance to the Program, American institutions have been generous in providing scholarships, visiting professorships, and other forms of financial assistance without which the bulk of foreign participants would never have been able to take advantage of the opportunity to study in the United States. Dating from the early days when the program had to rely so heavily on nonconvertible foreign currencies, the stateside expenses of the foreign participant have been largely defrayed by American educational organizations and institutions.
It was originally financially supported by the Carnegie Corporation and Rockefeller Foundation. It was pushed through and supported for decades by Democrats.
Oztuck as a ‘Graduate Student was not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting that passed three of the four resolutions DEMANDING that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.
Here are the Tuft’s ‘activist groups’ that rejected the University’s response: Graduate Students for Palestine, Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts FACULTY and STAFF Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine. It now questions the University’s commitments to [a]ctive citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protests, gatherings, and demonstrations enshrined in its Student Code of Conduct.
Tufts response to the three demands were rejected because it was dismissive of the collective voice of the student body, which is instrumental in enacting systemic changes, and it mischaracterize its resolutions as divisive.
Perhaps a solution is to let the colleges/universities decide to be self-supporting through student debt and continue with on-campus protests, gatherings, and demonstrations without USG school and student grants and funds or; disband these activist hotbeds of political rhetoric and get on with the endeavor of educating students.
There are other forms to effect change. Let the students protest on public sidewalk, in parks with permits and submit opeds to newspapers, write to public servants asking for the changes they seek.
I would say the same thing if those groups had Israel rather than Palestine in their names.
Are we a sovereign nation or are we not?
I’ve had it up to here with the bleeding hearts rushing to defend the “rights” of foreigners, guests, who behave in unwelcome ways. It’s a huge privilege to be admitted to America to attend an elite school. One should behave in a respectful and grateful way.
Americans who traveled abroad used to be called the “ugly Americans” because they didn’t know local social customs and acted like dolts. Can we call out the ugly foreign students who come here and do way worse? Or are we supposed to shut up and let them destroy our society in the name of special consideration for them?
"Are we a sovereign nation or are we not?" -- For the answer, substitute AIPAC and other Israeli NGOs here on US soil for every instance you wrote "foreigners" and "ugly foreign students."
AIPAC!!! Drink!
What did she do that was wrong? Nothing, so you make up lies about her based on what others that share her politics/beliefs/race have done. It’s simple guilt by association. Ironic coming from Israel.
in cases like this, to me the issue has always been the morphing of free speech into campus building takeovers and protestors telling others where they can or can't go. it's coercive and it doesn't have a legit place in higher ed. and before someone flips about my handle, Doge was my dog's name, she looked a lot like the Dogecoin dog and was not affiliated with Elon, had no Tesla or Twitter account
Well then, where’s the proof she did any of this? The only evidence we’ve received is that she wrote an op-ed.
Yet, something tells me you have no problem with what happened during the campus protests of the Civil Rights and Vietnam war eras.
Precisely!
Sorry Matt, you're fighting an obsolete battle. That ship has sailed. By which I mean a principled First Amendment absolutism. Credulous belief in an objective and balanced justice system was tottering before Covid, thanks to the situational justice of the Left; it was on its deathbed after our Covidiots suspended the First Amendment right of assembly for all but a favored group; and it died from the courtroom charades perpetrated on Donald Trump. A few have belatedly awoken but only because - quelle horreur! - the Right is now using the Left's cynicism against it. With a patently corrupt judiciary siding with the Left, the revolution is inevitable. Something new and different will emerge, but it's 50-50 if it will resemble our First Amendment culture we've had since the Founding.
Considering the degree of censorship that the Biden admin imposed on the American people via nefarious means on social media, I find it difficult to get worked up about the "free speech" rights of foreigners. Being in this country is a privilege for them, not a right. If there is an attitude of "free speech for me, not for thee," it's coming from Democrats and the left.
Good point. We have not moved from a non-censorship mode during the Biden admin. It was less open to see (until Twitter Files).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Don't see anything about "foreigners" or "privileges" there. See also Bill of Rights, don't see anything about "citizens," only "people."
Is then the concept of foreigners and citizen irrelevant? Were they not mentioned in the Constitution, because they were deemed at the time to be a states issue? I mean, I have sympathy for your line of argument, but in practice, it seems necessary to have some standards on immigration and border control, that require these concepts.
I sympathize with the idea that free speech should be applicable to "visitors". I'm also sympathetic to the idea that "visitors" should refrain from being impolite to their "hosts". If their criticism is confined to explaining what they see as injustice by their host, as hosts who believe in the preeminence of free speech, we should be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.
I'd like to see more clarity and transparency in the charges or violations of the terms of their visas for people being deported. I'd like to see arrests being made by uniformed officers. I'd like to see due process being honored, courts respected, and judges rulings followed while appeals are pending. I'd also like to be sure the hearings and appeals are fair and speedy. Is this too much to ask?
Great comment.
Unfortunately, the judicial system has lost all credibility given the past 32 years, especially regards immigration. Seems like the judicial system is anti-citizen and only wants closed borders to keep illegals inside the country. This partly explains the emotions surrounding student visas and the Christmas 2024 battle on X over H1b visas.
I think the left has the better argument on Ozturk given what we now know. But the left’s hypocrisy and silence over the far more horrific actions of the judicial system towards peaceful J6 marchers and peaceful abortion protestors should never be forgotten. The left is in control of the judiciary, and the feigned ignorance over the selective application of the law makes Claude Raines look like a piker.
Ya, Jan 6 was worse.
Visas are not under the purview of the judicial system. It is a request for a visit for a purpose. Lie about that purpose or violate , in any way , the stated purpose of said visa and one gets deported. It is up to the executive branch and not the leg. or judicial branch. PERIOD!
I'm asking, do we have transparency about what was lied about on the visa application? Is voicing opposition to Israel, based on events that occurred after entry, justification for removal? Is indeed, vocal support of Hamas, again, based on events that happened after granting of a visa, grounds for removal? If so, then be clear about this, and trust that the courts will eventually rule properly.
I have zero trust—as in none, nada, zip—that the courts will rule properly. If they continue like this unchecked, we’ll become Britain. We clearly already have a two-tier system based on political viewpoint, which all the free speech “absolutists” of the left ignore because they approve of censorship on American citizens they disagree with.
Try reading the Immigration and Naturalization Act. By the way, illegal immigrants have the fewest "rights," following by people on visas, and then legal permanent residents have more. But still not equivalent to citizens.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen born in New Mexico. He (and later two of his children) was "extrajudicially" killed as a target of an Obama drone attack. Sounds pretty equivalents to non-citizens?
Whatever the federal government gets away with doing to foreigners (even green card holders) will eventually redound to citizens.
No, it won't.
Some of us remember when the ACLU was free speech absolutist and argued in favor of Nazis to peacefully assemble and parade. But even then those were citizens.
Having lived in Boston for several years, I suspect Casper's (MA - Obama appointee) order is simply a politically motivated impediment ploy. It literally happens every day in that city.
I still believe the Secretary of State still have the overriding authority.
Student visas have no standing. If she or anyone on a student visa becomes an unpleasant guest in our country then it is completely within the rights of the State Dept to revoke the visa. Buh bye.
This timeline does not provide any of the necessary information to determine whether her limited rights under immigration law or the First Amendment were violated. I don’t see the detention warrant linked here or the specific facts that triggered the INS action. Nothing but speculation and the same NGOs and usual cast of characters pitching a fit. She will receive all due process accorded to the law and the lawful outcome will be determined.
The underlying issue here is that the public outrage machine goes into high gear over THIS particular individual. If you live in any urban or suburban area in the country there are massive injustices occurring to American citizens every day within a mile of your home. Why are the job prospects of young working class people, particularly young men without college degrees so limited, and yet if you go to ANY construction site the only language being spoken is Spanish? Why are so many working age Americans “not in the workforce” and so not counted in government unemployment statistics? Why are there so many people on Social Security Disability and the numbers rising? Why are so many people addicted to deadly drugs imported from our southern neighbors and living in squalor or in tents on the streets? I see lots of injustice all around me, and the very last thing on my radar is some entitled grad student from Turkey getting their student visa revoked.
This is just another contrived story to get latent lefties excited and suddenly screaming about constitutional rights, the same very rights they consistently ignored for the last four years. I don’t care about this person at all and it’s disappointing to see Racket wasting time on this story. Let’s talk about what the hell is happening to Americans and leave this trivia political narrative to NYT and WAPO.
"I don’t care about this person at all and it’s disappointing to see Racket wasting time on this story."
...do you count yourself a critic of 'leftist cancel culture'?
Because you either care about both or you don't care about both. It is incoherent to care about one and not the other.
Thence, if you've spent any appreciable amount of time criticizing 'cancel culture', and you do not care about what has happened to this person for peacefully speaking her mind, it is clear you had ulterior motives in your criticisms...just as the left claims the critics of cancel culture do.
Reread the first paragraph.
Regular Americans, not the Visa holding type, are being censored for their opposition to Israel's genocide. We aren't being shipped out of state without criminal charges, but it feels very much like during Covid, where having the wrong belief and saying the wrong thing will lose you a twitter account, or maybe get your foreign classmate on watch list for liking your comment about how Israel sucks. Not to mention, they stripped degrees from the graduating kids suspended over the physical occupation parts, including US students paying tuition.
The issue isn't so much that Rubio is going around revoking student Visas with cause, it's that there is no "due process" clearly being applied. Even the lawyers for the student haven't been "presented with charges". Did it occur to you that the reason this timeline is lacking the necessary information is because it has not been PROVIDED to even the accused and their legal teams/family?
If this government can get away with this, the next one can too. So far, we've watched them abuse legal citizens with weaponization of actual law and charges (as they did with Covid and J6 protestors under Biden) and now they are abducting people, defying court orders by sending PHD students to Louisiana detention centers... and getting your approval because you haven't "seen the proof of the charges"?
That's the opposite of how it's supposed to work- show me the proof or I assume it doesn't exist.
Like most everyone else's commentary here, that first paragraph focuses entirely on whether what has happened here is *legally permissible*, in order to avoid the question of whether it is ethically defensible.
Canceling someone on social media is legally permissible, too. Are you saying you do not therefore care about it, and do not find it ethically questionable? And if you don't, why was cancel culture ever a concern of yours in the first place?
Update:
State Department Finds No Evidence Linking Tufts Student to Antisemitism
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1jz2mm9/no_evidence_linking_tufts_student_to_antisemitism/
I've long believed that if this country claims to practice democracy we should extend the same civil rights to everyone, regardless of their immigration status. It's unconscionable to arrest and deport someone because they've expressed an opinion a particular administration dislikes. . As noted in the timeline being remarked on here, the Trump administration has offered no evidence that this woman has done anything beyond doing so.
What you believe is not relevant. 1) We are a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy. 2) We don’t extend all civil rights to everyone: examples: only citizens can vote, and even citizens can by their own behavior lose certain and appropriately so.
And if we feel like throwing any wrong thinking foreigners in a cell in Louisiana we'll damn well do it!!
I don’t care what they think, I care that they are not using their presence, platform or resources against US Law or policy in contradistinction to why they advertised on their visa application they wanted/needed to visit the US.
Since your examples of civil rights not extended to everyone are unstated or irrelevant in regard to Ozturk’s situation as we know it at present, please advise what grounds exist that justify her deportation for expressing opinions frowned on by the Trump administration. I also remain unclear as to why you thinkI have no right to beliefs/opinions regarding the administration’s treatment of Ozark because I referred to the existence of US“democracy”rather than “constitutional representative republicanism", following the practice of most if not all politicians.