3 ms·

Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic" (r

Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic" (read- supportive of peace in Palestine). They are literally arresting and deporting people for suspected thoughts. Student visas are being denied based on social media posts. This is fascism.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic" Do you have a link to what you are referring to?
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Quote from Marco Rubio (confirmed 99-0 in the Senate) "Rubio said that while Khalil's “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported-serious-foreign-policy-consequences-rubio-memo-rcna200612 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported... The article is a day old, the judges just affirmed that Rubio is allowed to do this today
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Thanks for the information. FWIW, I think this is total bullshit and fascism, but your comments aren't telling the whole story. The most important thing to point out is that "the judges" in this case was actually a single immigration judge. Immigration judges belong to the executive branch, not the judiciary. I agree this law that says that the Secretary of State can essentially just deport anyone they want can't be squared with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and due process. But that wasn't really this immigration judge's determination to make, i.e. questioning the constitutionality of the law that Rubio is using to deport Khalil. There is a separate case going on in federal court that should address that topic. This article has more info: https://archive.vn/D890d https://archive.vn/D890d
    - spencerflem 2y ago
      In a different deportation case they just defied a supreme court ruling - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/trump-deportation-el-salvador-kilmar-abrego-garcia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/trump-deport... Didn't realize that the judge in the linked one was an immigration judge and not a judiciary judge thanks for the clarification
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        That other deportation case you link to here is even more bizarrely evil to me. At least in the other examples the administration is making the case that they should have the power to deport these people under law (not like I agree with that interpretation, but they are at least trying to make an argument). In this other case, the administration flat out admitted they made a mistake and that he shouldn't have been deported. So they ship him to this notorious prison and then just do an "oopsies, our bad, he's gone now." Not only do I not see how the administration's stance is defensible, why would you even want to defend it, especially if you actually agreed with their overall stance of wanting to increase deportations of "bad guys". The administration said outright he is not a bad guy! I simply can't understand it outside of a "the cruelty is the point" framework, but even in that framework the cruelty is normally directed at "bad guys". Now folks are OK with cruelty to random people that was the result of an admitted error. WTF happened to our country?
        spencerflem 2y ago
        completely agreed. its nice to find someone else worried about this on hacker news
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    > the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country That's how it always worked? This idea that someone is entitled to a student visa is just odd, and I am speaking as someone who had a variety of different visas, including two student visas. You're really at the whim of the state department. It just takes getting notice, a minor infraction, not submitting a renewal on time, or lying on a form and you're done. Lawyers may helps there is some way to appeal but it's an incredible uphill battle.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      > That's how it always worked? Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas. But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that. We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
      - rdtsc 2y ago
        > No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. They don’t see it as a free speech issue. They are not imprisoning the person but “simply” sending them home. > We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions. Not really, they specifically ask about membership in various parties, namely the communist party. This is nothing new at all. Any student coming say in the 80s and starting to show up at pro Communist party protests would have been just as easily kicked out. A visa like J-1 can be revoked for non-criminal reasons. They don’t see a student visa validity as a free speech issue. It has never been and won’t be until the law is changed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 2y ago
Just for context, that judge is an immigration judge, ie a Department of State employee. Immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch (despite the job title) and can't make precedent or interpret law. They are basically a rubber stamp for whatever policy the Secretary of State is pushing.
rdtsc 2y ago
> grounds for deportation, Sadly but nobody is entitled to student visas. They never were. It's mostly at the whim of the state department and they may revoke it for a variety of reasons. Minor misdemeanors or getting caught with DUI would also lead to losing a visa. It's really a "walk on eggshells" kind of situation. Yeah, in some cases appealing and finding a lawyer may help but it's huge uphill battle.
- boredpeter 2y ago
  [dead]
iddan 2y ago
Calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people is not being supportive of peace in Palestine. These students are not innocent.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic" Do you have a link to what you are referring to?

spencerflem 2y ago
Quote from Marco Rubio (confirmed 99-0 in the Senate) "Rubio said that while Khalil's “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported-serious-foreign-policy-consequences-rubio-memo-rcna200612 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported... The article is a day old, the judges just affirmed that Rubio is allowed to do this today
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Thanks for the information. FWIW, I think this is total bullshit and fascism, but your comments aren't telling the whole story. The most important thing to point out is that "the judges" in this case was actually a single immigration judge. Immigration judges belong to the executive branch, not the judiciary. I agree this law that says that the Secretary of State can essentially just deport anyone they want can't be squared with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and due process. But that wasn't really this immigration judge's determination to make, i.e. questioning the constitutionality of the law that Rubio is using to deport Khalil. There is a separate case going on in federal court that should address that topic. This article has more info: https://archive.vn/D890d https://archive.vn/D890d
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    In a different deportation case they just defied a supreme court ruling - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/trump-deportation-el-salvador-kilmar-abrego-garcia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/trump-deport... Didn't realize that the judge in the linked one was an immigration judge and not a judiciary judge thanks for the clarification
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      That other deportation case you link to here is even more bizarrely evil to me. At least in the other examples the administration is making the case that they should have the power to deport these people under law (not like I agree with that interpretation, but they are at least trying to make an argument). In this other case, the administration flat out admitted they made a mistake and that he shouldn't have been deported. So they ship him to this notorious prison and then just do an "oopsies, our bad, he's gone now." Not only do I not see how the administration's stance is defensible, why would you even want to defend it, especially if you actually agreed with their overall stance of wanting to increase deportations of "bad guys". The administration said outright he is not a bad guy! I simply can't understand it outside of a "the cruelty is the point" framework, but even in that framework the cruelty is normally directed at "bad guys". Now folks are OK with cruelty to random people that was the result of an admitted error. WTF happened to our country?
      - spencerflem 2y ago
        completely agreed. its nice to find someone else worried about this on hacker news
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country That's how it always worked? This idea that someone is entitled to a student visa is just odd, and I am speaking as someone who had a variety of different visas, including two student visas. You're really at the whim of the state department. It just takes getting notice, a minor infraction, not submitting a renewal on time, or lying on a form and you're done. Lawyers may helps there is some way to appeal but it's an incredible uphill battle.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > That's how it always worked? Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas. But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that. We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      > No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. They don’t see it as a free speech issue. They are not imprisoning the person but “simply” sending them home. > We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions. Not really, they specifically ask about membership in various parties, namely the communist party. This is nothing new at all. Any student coming say in the 80s and starting to show up at pro Communist party protests would have been just as easily kicked out. A visa like J-1 can be revoked for non-criminal reasons. They don’t see a student visa validity as a free speech issue. It has never been and won’t be until the law is changed.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 2y ago

Just for context, that judge is an immigration judge, ie a Department of State employee. Immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch (despite the job title) and can't make precedent or interpret law. They are basically a rubber stamp for whatever policy the Secretary of State is pushing.

rdtsc 2y ago

> grounds for deportation, Sadly but nobody is entitled to student visas. They never were. It's mostly at the whim of the state department and they may revoke it for a variety of reasons. Minor misdemeanors or getting caught with DUI would also lead to losing a visa. It's really a "walk on eggshells" kind of situation. Yeah, in some cases appealing and finding a lawyer may help but it's huge uphill battle.

boredpeter 2y ago
[dead]

iddan 2y ago

Calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people is not being supportive of peace in Palestine. These students are not innocent.