Yes. I'm well-aware of the analogy of the slowly boiled frog, etc. But it's also the slippery-slope fallacy, so... Why are we assuming facts here before we know of them?
She is a Turkish national on a student visa. Those folks do NOT (like it or not) have the same rights as citizens. You cannot, for example, support (not saying she's done this, just saying this is the law) an organization designated as an FTO, as a "green card" holder; you CAN (sigh) as a citizen. /shrug
sees downvotes ... Um, excuse me? Am I not allowed to have a valid dissenting opinion here, now? Why the downvotes, folks? Give me a valid reason please
Because it's not a slow boil, not anymore. The executive is flaunting TROs, conducting deportations without due process, openly flirting with the idea of stripping citizenship and talking about a third term.
Anyone who should have payed attention to Project 2025 but "remained calm" instead should now pay attention to the McCarthy II plan from the same source. They are telling us who they are and we should listen to them.
Visa holders have all of what most would consider "foundational rights" as any citizen. They have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc.
The government revoking a visa based on categories of behavior which are protected by those foundational rights is appalling.
I have looked into the legal basis of this. As a visa holder, you are enjoying a privilege, not a right. And to keep holding that privilege, you cannot openly support enemies of the state. Whether this is actually enforced or not is immaterial- that's the law as it currently stands.
As a citizen, you can verbally support enemies of the state, but you cannot financially support them.
INA § 237(a)(4)(A): If a visa holder engages in activities that endanger public safety or national security, including endorsing terrorist organizations or inciting violence, they can be deported.
Material Support Clause (INA § 212(a)(3)(B)):
Even verbal or symbolic support of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) can count as “material support,” which is grounds for both inadmissibility and deportation.
Overstay or Status Violation: If someone is already skating close to the edge (e.g., questionable employment, status lapse), political speech supporting enemies of the state can provide the cherry on top for ICE to act.
Discretionary Revocation: The U.S. can revoke a visa for virtually any reason, especially if the person’s presence is deemed “contrary to U.S. interests.” That doesn't require proof of a crime—just bureaucratic will.
It's always been like this... But now it's controversial, apparently.
The student in question participated in a protest in support of Palestinians, not Hamas. There is no evidence presented they provided material support to Hamas, and there is no evidence they provided verbal support of Hamas.
So yes, it's controversial that a student, participating in a student protest, protesting a war, was deported without due process.
And this is before we mention the government has admitted, in court document, that they illegally deported a visa holder to El Salvador, and "oops" since he's already in a prison overseas there's nothing our court system can do about it.
So yes, controversies abound with the way this administration is "enforcing" immigration law.
> Why are we assuming facts here before we know of them
Because we should’ve been given the facts already. That’s the law. The fact that we haven’t been given the facts indicates that the people responsible are not reliable and deserve all scrutiny.
If there were notable cause for their actions they should shout them from the roof tops and please define support? She even as a green card holder can lawfully support verbally or in writing anyone she chooses.
All the ways such support would be unlawful would be unlawful for citizens as well. That said we know that the support she has given is writing against the gazan genocide. If they had better cause they would have already spoken them.
She is a Turkish national on a student visa. Those folks do NOT (like it or not) have the same rights as citizens. You cannot, for example, support (not saying she's done this, just saying this is the law) an organization designated as an FTO, as a "green card" holder; you CAN (sigh) as a citizen. /shrug
sees downvotes ... Um, excuse me? Am I not allowed to have a valid dissenting opinion here, now? Why the downvotes, folks? Give me a valid reason please