4 ms·

Revoking a visa has to cite a legal reason for doing so, such as ineligibility or criminal activity. 1A would obviously be material.

woodruffw 2y ago
You’re right that it has to cite a legal reason. It happens that one of those legal reasons is endorsing or espousing the views of entities designated by the US as terrorists[1]. But again, I cannot emphasize enough how much all of this is pretextual: the people doing this don’t give a damn about Hamas, or anti-Semitism, or anything else. It’s about deporting people, full stop. [1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  It wouldn't matter anyway, because it seems one of the tenets of this particular government is: Sure, there's a law. Try and enforce it. Unless I'm mistaken, all the agencies with the power to arrest a member of the Executive branch, lie within the Executive branch itself and they are all controlled, or soon will be controlled, by persons appointed by the President. All of these persons are expected to be more faithful to the current President than to the Constitution. Which means: even if Congress wanted to stop him, there's nothing that it can do to enforce that.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Supreme Court Marshalls can enforce the courts order (and arrest) and answer to the court rather than the executive/ DOJ. Only federal police I can think of outside the executive branch that would have the power to do it.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      The Judicial branch has US Probation and Pretrial as an armed internal branch with legal powers.
- tantalor 2y ago
  Thanks, that's a good point. I wonder what is the process for that finding. Is a court involved? It should not be unilateral decision by state department.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    > I wonder what is the process for that finding. Is a court involved? My understanding is that the State Department can revoke a visa without any court involvement. There's a waiver process, but that process also entirely sidesteps the courts. > It should not be unilateral decision by state department. I agree completely.

woodruffw 2y ago

You’re right that it has to cite a legal reason. It happens that one of those legal reasons is endorsing or espousing the views of entities designated by the US as terrorists[1]. But again, I cannot emphasize enough how much all of this is pretextual: the people doing this don’t give a damn about Hamas, or anti-Semitism, or anything else. It’s about deporting people, full stop. [1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

drivingmenuts 2y ago
It wouldn't matter anyway, because it seems one of the tenets of this particular government is: Sure, there's a law. Try and enforce it. Unless I'm mistaken, all the agencies with the power to arrest a member of the Executive branch, lie within the Executive branch itself and they are all controlled, or soon will be controlled, by persons appointed by the President. All of these persons are expected to be more faithful to the current President than to the Constitution. Which means: even if Congress wanted to stop him, there's nothing that it can do to enforce that.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Supreme Court Marshalls can enforce the courts order (and arrest) and answer to the court rather than the executive/ DOJ. Only federal police I can think of outside the executive branch that would have the power to do it.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The Judicial branch has US Probation and Pretrial as an armed internal branch with legal powers.
tantalor 2y ago
Thanks, that's a good point. I wonder what is the process for that finding. Is a court involved? It should not be unilateral decision by state department.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  > I wonder what is the process for that finding. Is a court involved? My understanding is that the State Department can revoke a visa without any court involvement. There's a waiver process, but that process also entirely sidesteps the courts. > It should not be unilateral decision by state department. I agree completely.