Urback: The chilling case of Mahmoud Khalil should enrage anyone who purports to support freedom

Agree (writing this from LA):

…We’d also be foolish to assume that what starts with Mr. Khalil will end with him. There could be a genuine risk to Canadian visitors in the United States when the government will so willingly forfeit due process rights for non-citizens. (The plight of Canadian Jasmine Mooney, who was sent to a detention centre for nearly two weeks after trying to renew her visa, is evidence of that.) The administration could very well move from targeting green-card-holders to citizens, similarly relying on obscure legal provisions. Or they could ignore the law altogether, which Mr. Trump has recently signalled he has few qualms about doing.

In short, Mr. Khalil’s case is a chilling sign of U.S.’s slide into autocracy. Those on all sides of the Israel-Palestine debate should resist it.

Source: The chilling case of Mahmoud Khalil should enrage anyone who purports to support freedom

TRUMP WANTS TO SELL CITIZENSHIP TO RICH PEOPLE. TAKE IT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES — IT’S A BAD IDEA

Indeed:

In his agonizingly long recent address to Congress, President Trump floated a plan to create a new “gold card” visa. For the low price of $5 million, immigrants would be able to buy a pathway to citizenship.

Of course, Trump cannot create a new visa without the help of Congress. But just as importantly, this is a bad idea. It’s not only been tried before — it’s also failed to a degree that has made dozens of countries roll back similar policies in recent years.

A Global Phenomenon

The rich have long enjoyed access to so-called “golden visas” or “golden passports,” schemes where foreigners are given access to residency or even citizenship in exchange for purchasing property or making investments in a new country.

Upwards of 100 countries have offered similar investment migration deals in the past, but in recent years that number has begun to dwindle.

One of the main reasons countries are phasing out these programs? To tackle rising housing prices. Critics argue that the wealthy migrants who take advantage of these visas distort housing markets by paying far over market value for living spaces.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced last year that the program that allowed non-European Union citizens to obtain residency by investing $540,000 in cash in real estate would be eliminated explicitly to tackle skyrocketing housing prices.

The phenomena of residency by investment programs first appeared in the late 1980s as a way to attract foreign investment. The United States, for example, adopted the EB-5 visa in 1990, offering permanent residence to foreigners who invest between $1 and $2 million in job-creating businesses.

Some of the most popular programs are the ones in Europe — primarily because of the benefits that residency or citizenship in the region can grant, like ease of travel within the Schengen Zone and access to top-notch medical treatment and education. Over 130,000 people have received residency or citizenship in the European Union through similar programs.

These investment schemes — offered at one point or another by Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain — sprung up at the beginning of the 2010s as a way to bring in foreign investment to overcome the financial crisis.

The world’s ultra wealthy obliged.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt quietly applied for Cypriot citizenship in 2020, allowing him free movement around a Europe that was largely shut down for outsiders during the pandemic. Cyprus shuttered its program mere months afterwards and ended up stripping citizenship from 222 investors, including many Russian oligarchs linked to the conflict in Ukraine.

Spain issued an estimated 6,200 visas in exchange for property investments between 2013 and 2023. Portugal has issued12,718 since 2012. In both countries, the most visas were granted to Chinese citizens.

Even European countries without explicit golden visas brokered similar deals with the wealthy — Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel became a French citizen in 2018 for contributing to the country’s “influence.”

And the rich haven’t limited themselves to European deals.

The most infamous is the case of former PayPal CEO and reactionary political activist Peter Thiel, who in 2011 was grantedcitizenship in New Zealand after only 12 days in the country.

More recently, Open AI CEO Sam Altman was given Indonesia’s first ever “Golden Visa.” In a press release, the government said they expect Altman to “contribute to developing artificial intelligence in Indonesia.”

Rolling Back the Tide

But have countries benefited from this influx of wealthy investors?

New research has suggested that the economic gains are minor. A 2022 report from the Melbourne-based Grattan Institute found that investors granted residency in Australia brought limited benefits to the country because they tended to be older and didn’t contribute much in taxes. Many of them ended up costing the state more in public services than they pay in taxes. Australia axed its investment program, launched in 2012, earlier this year.

There may also be negative knock-on effects, like inviting and even encouraging the wealthy to snap up properties,crowding out working residents from the housing market — think gentrification on a country-level. Lawmakers in Spain and Portugal both cited the role of investment for visa programs in spiking housing prices when scrapping and revising their programs this year, respectively. Research on the Portuguese case backs up the link to housing stocks.

To be clear, migrants writ-large have minimal impacts on rising housing prices. The issue is with exorbitantly wealthy newcomers, who distort markets and force working-class people out of their homes. The problem isn’t restricted to foreign billionaires — investors in the U.S. have also driven up prices by treating the housing stock like a commodity.

Rethinking Migration Restrictions

Governments worldwide appear to be wising up on the reality of golden visas. Spain, Portugal, Australia, and Cyprus have all recently modified or scrapped their investment for residency or citizenship schemes.

Ireland shut down its program after 11 years in 2023, citing concerns that it could be facilitating Russian money laundering. The United Kingdom did the same the year prior.

Greece raised the investment needed to qualify for residency from €500,000 to €800,000 in popular areas in response to spiking housing prices. Cyprus and Bulgaria scrapped their programs at around the same time over concerns about Russian oligarchs abusing the rules for money laundering and tax evasion.

Instead of creating a new “gold card” scheme in the United States, we should rethink restrictions on movement in general.

That ease with which the world’s wealthy can traverse borders should be expanded to the rest of us. Freedom of movement is a right we should all have, a right that people had for tens of thousands of years before the rise of the modern nation state. Reducing barriers to migration will only become more important as climate change and resource depletion make regions inhospitable.

A just immigration system should neither reward you for being rich nor punish you for being poor.

Source: TRUMP WANTS TO SELL CITIZENSHIP TO RICH PEOPLE. TAKE IT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES — IT’S A BAD IDEA

HESA: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

Sensible and ambitious, with potential medium and long-term benefits:

…Now, there just happens to be one kind of change that is suddenly going very cheap, and that is the ability to add top-class academic talent. The carnage down south, with the National Institutes of Health NIH being at least partially dismantled and entire universities being threatened with loss of hundreds of millions of dollars unless they submit to an unspecified number of random administrative fiats from the trump administration, is about to start hemorrhaging talent. It’s not just foreign scholars who are going to leave; top American talent is suddenly footloose, too, because it has become apparent that the damage being done to American science is unlikely to be fully reversible. And even if it could be reversed, you’d never be more than 4 years away from another group of anti-Enlightenment jackals coming and taking another wrecking ball to the whole system. The age of American Science is over, and it’s not coming back any time soon. The opportunity exists, therefore, for ambitious universities to scoop up a fair bit of top new talent.

But wait a minute, you say. Talent requires salaries, and salaries are under pressure, and Big Philanthropy doesn’t cover that. Well, actually, it can, but only if you package it and structure it correctly.

It would indeed be hard for a university to get a philanthropist to pick up the tab in order to grab a new talent across a range of disciplines. There’s nothing “new” about hiring additional profs to plug holes or provide upgrades to an institution’s existing staff. But some philanthropists probably could be persuaded to cover the costs if a university presented a structured package of targeted hires. That is, a set of hires that built on a set of existing strengths and moved the institution closer to world-class status in a specific discipline (e.g., Hegelian Philosophy, Dentistry) or cluster of related disciplines (Human and Animal Health/Vaccines, Water protection, etc.). 

Basically what you would want to do is create a package that encompassed: i) a half-dozen or so fully-funded named chairs, some of which could go to existing staff, others to new star hires, which would mean no net charges to the operating budget ii) money for whatever new space, laboratory or otherwise, was required to house these new scholars and their work, iii) funding for a reasonable number of graduate students, iv) at least some funds for ongoing innovative activities and v) some kind of collective identity. Wrap the whole thing in a bow, name it the [Philanthropist name here] Centre for [Discipline/Grand Challenge name here], hire ambitiously from across the United States to create a cluster of excellence on a level that can really make a mark on a global scale. Normally, this kind of thing would not be possible. But with chaos south of the border, I think right now, it is. And it could be game-changing for a few universities if they could pull it off….

Source: Nobody is Coming to Save Us, But

How Trump’s Targeting of Immigrants With Legal Status Departs From the Norm

Of note (as does virtually everything the Trump administration does):

…Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old green card holder who was detained last week and transferred from New York to a facility in Louisiana, is one of the most high-profile immigration detainees in custody. President Trump said in social media this week that Khalil’s detention is related to his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, where he earned a master’s degree last year.

Khalil’s legal team has described his arrest — as a permanent legal resident — as unprecedented, while some legal bloggers and journalists have placed it in a larger context of what they describe as politically-motivated enforcement targeting pro-Palestinian activists. Immigration researcher and Syracuse University professor Austin Kocher explained this week that both understandings are, in fact, correct.

On the one hand, “green card holders and even U.S. citizens are arrested and detained by immigration authorities more often than most people are aware,” and a number of those arrests have involved Palestinian activists. On the other hand, Kocher writes, use of “the specific law that might allow the U.S. to deport Mahmoud is extraordinarily rare in recent history.”

The law that Kocher is referring to is an element of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was last used in 1995, according to The New York Times. The Trump administration has argued the provision allows the Secretary of State to deport permanent legal residents if they represent a threat to national security. Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a Department of Homeland Security statement claiming that Khalil satisfied that criteria by having “led activities aligned to Hamas,” during the protests. The White House cited unreleased “intelligence” to defend the claim, the New York Post reported.

Some legal scholars have argued this law was struck down as unconstitutional in 1996 by a federal district court after the Clinton administration targeted a Mexican national for deportation. That decision was later reversed by an appeals court on procedural grounds, without weighing in on the merits of the case.

In a twist of irony, the judge behind that district court decision was Maryanne Trump Barry — the president’s late older sister.

“The issue,” Barry wrote, “is whether an alien who is in this country legally can, merely because he is here, have his liberty restrained and be forcibly removed to a specific country in the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State and without any meaningful opportunity to be heard. The answer is a ringing ‘no.’”

Source: How Trump’s Targeting of Immigrants With Legal Status Departs From the Norm

Snyder – Blame Canada: Our warmongering, drugged-out conspiracy theory

 Uncomfortable parallel between Canada and USA with Ukraine and Russia:

… War with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind. Fentanyl is not the only the big lie. That Canada does not really exist is the other. The way that this fiction is formulated is strangely Putinist. Trump’s rhetoric about Canada uncannily  echoes that of Russian propagandists towards Ukraine. The claim that the country is not real; that its people really want to join us; that the border is an artificial line; that history must lead to annexation… This is all familiar from Putin, as is Trump’s curious ambiguity about a neighbor: they are our brothers, they are also our enemies; they are doing terrible things to us, they also don’t really exist. 

The imperialist rhetoric has to be seen for what it is, which is preparation not just for trade war but for war itself. And, it goes without saying, a disastrous one, in every sense, for everyone. (Except Putin and Xi, perhaps: the American-Canadian conflict is one way that Trump is handing them the world on a platter.)

Just because someone treats you politely and speaks your language does not mean that they want to be invaded by you. This was an underlying Russian mistake about Ukrainians. Ukrainian public culture, before the Russian invasion, was bilingual and polite. In general people simply adjusted to whichever language was most comfortable for the other person. Visiting Russians therefore had the experience of Ukrainians speaking their language, and then could arrogantly assume that this was because Ukrainians were in fact Russians and wanted to be part of Russia. I fear that Americans, or at least some Americans in the White House, are making a similar mistake.

Canada also has a polite public culture, less bilingual in practice than Ukraine’s, but unlike Ukraine’s with an official second language. Canadians, whether their first language is French or English, will naturally speak English with monolingual Americans. This is simple courtesy, but it leads Americans away from considering Canada’s differences, one of which is that the official language of its largest province is French and that the entire country has two official languages. Canadian elected officials use both, at least at the beginning of their speeches. They have to debate each other in both. The Canadian foreign minister is from Quebec. When she is talking circles around us, we don’t necessarily pause to consider that she is doing so in her second language. 

Canadians tend to be (or tended to be) patient with us. Canadians know Americans well, and tend (or have tended) to see us as our best selves. All of this is to their credit; none of this means that they want to become the fifty-first state (a phrase so dumb it hurts my fingertips to type it). Canada is a very interesting and a very different country, with a very different history. Canadians have quite different institutions, and live quite different (and longer) lives. Canadians have a profound sense of who they are; anyone who suggests the contrary simply has not taken the time to come to the country or to listen with any attention.

The notion that Canada is not real is an example of the complaisant lies that imperialists tell themselves before beginning doomed wars of aggression. The specific association of Canada with fentanyl is a big lie that allows Americans to shift responsibility away to a chosen enemy and enter a world of geopolitical fantasy. Anyone who plays with the idea that Canada is not a real place or repeats the fentanyl slander is warmongering and preparing the way for North American catastrophe. 

Big lies are powerful; but they are also vulnerable, at least before war begins. Wars begin with words, and we have to take words seriously, at the time when they matter most, which is now. When we see the truth of where this is all meant to go, we can prevent it: by calling out the big liars and telling the small truths.

Source: Snyder – Blame Canada: Our warmongering, drugged-out conspiracy theory

Sullivan: The Return Of The McCarthyite Chill

Accurate:

…This is “the first arrest of many to come,” says Trump. DHS is already searching dorm rooms.

Note the astonishing breadth of this legal formula. You could, for example, be a Ukrainian exile who furiously opposes the Trump administration’s new policy toward Russia. Under the Rubio standard, if you do not have citizenship, merely expressing your views in a way that jeopardizes US foreign policy interests is now a deportable offense. The Trump administration, unless a court stops them, has effectively removed the First Amendment from tens of millions of inhabitants of this country.

It’s actually worse: if you merely potentially could say such a thing, you can be deported for a pre-crime, or rather pre-noncrime. Every noncitizen in the US now has to watch what they say about foreign policy — or else. You may have just arrived from Putin’s Russia, and are now being told by Trump: don’t think you now have free speech just because you’re in America. The US government is monitoring your every word and can deport you if you say the wrong thing. You have to wait until you’re a citizen to be free.

If the law seems McCarthyite, that’s because it was passed in 1952 and aimed specifically at Holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe suspected of communist sympathies. According to historian David Nasaw in The Last Million, “suspected Communists were denied visas while untold numbers of antisemites, Nazi collaborators, and war criminals gained entrance to the United States.” It is one of the sublime ironies of this that the ADL now supports a law that once persecuted Holocaust survivors. Back in 1950s, the ADL called it “the worst kind of legislation, discriminatory and abusive of American concepts and ideals.” Now that the ADL can use the law to go after its foes, it’s fine.

Has the law been used before to revoke visas? Yes, for the deportation of otherwise-protected diplomats who might impede relations with another country. Here’s the single lonely example of a precedent:

The case involved Mario Ruiz Massieu, the former deputy attorney general of Mexico who entered the United States in 1995 on a visa. That year, the U.S. government tried to send him back to Mexico, where he was wanted on money laundering and other charges. The secretary of state at the time, Warren Christopher, said deportation was necessary for foreign policy reasons. Allowing [him] to stay would undermine the U.S. push for judicial reforms in Mexico…

The law has never been used, so far as I have been able to discover, to target noncitizens’ free-speech rights. Take the case of Irish immigrants who, for decades, openly supported a designated terrorist organization, the IRA, and provided the majority of the material support, i.e. most of the money, to kill innocents in an allied country, the UK, which has long been America’s most reliable ally. The Dish hasn’t been able to find a single case where an Irish noncitizen was deported for seriously adversely affecting the foreign policy of the US.

I suspect, in fact, that the Trump administration chose this law precisely to avoid accusing Khalil of an actual crime. All they have to prove now is that they consider him a serious potential impediment to their conduct of foreign policy. And because they fear that a judge might test the reasonableness of that Rubio decision, they swiftly transported Khalil to a notorious jail in Louisiana, a state where a more pliant judge is likelier. For good measure, they prevented him from talking to his lawyers for days — and they still can’t speak privately

The White House mocked him from their X account: “SHALOM, MAHMOUD.” Take a second to absorb that monstrosity: the glib and spiteful use of a Jewish term for goodbye to a Muslim. And not from some nasty X nutter. From the president who is supposed to represent all of us, but is, in fact, a deranged, bigoted troll. 

I’m going to pause now for the unnecessary paragraph that is yet somehow necessary. I despise Hamas for its North Korean-level brainwashing of children, its Nazi-level anti-Semitism, and its barbaric use of women and children as human shields. I have absolutely no time for campus protests that go over the line into intimidation of other students. If crimes have been committed, I have no problem prosecuting. But offensive speech? It’s allowed in America. Handing out fliers? It’s how America began! A campus can (and should) discipline its students; but the federal government intervening to seize a legal resident and trying to deport him for speech — along with a dragnet for finding others to throw out — is an outrage in a free country. 

Can the Trump administration win this fight? I suspect they can. Rubio sayshe intends to deport any noncitizen who merely “supports Hamas” — not materially supports, but just supports Hamas — and not just in the past, but in the future.

But they seem to believe a visa is the same as a green card. JD Vance — who lectured Europeans on free speech online, while his own administration was using AI to police the web for dissent! — said on Fox that a green card holder “doesn’t have an indefinite right to stay in America.” The formal name for a green card is “Legal Permanent Resident”, Mr Vice President, not Legal Provisional Resident. They enter the US in the citizen line. And until now, every applicant for a green card has waited for that moment of relief when it’s finally granted, the knowledge that now you are safe and here for good. It remains one of the best days of my own life. Vance just stripped all of that away from all of us. Probably because, like the rest of these incompetent thugs, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and doesn’t much care.

For the sake of argument, let’s say all this is technically lawful, if obviously a massive stretch. A further question remains: even if it is technically legal, do we want to live in an America that tells any noncitizen that they can obey every law, and commit no errors in their immigration journey, but they are still not safe from deportation if they speak their minds … about Israel? Do we want to tell their American-citizen wives, husbands, and children that they have no right to keep their family intact because of problematic speech? 

And let’s not kid ourselves. The reason this is happening is because the government being assailed on American campuses and streets is not any government, and not even the American government, but the government of Israel. It’s part of a much broader campaign to chill criticism of the Jewish state. To give a simple example, the documentary No Other Land about the conflict on the West Bank just won an Oscar for Best Documentary. It has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100 percent for both critic and audience scores, which damn near never happens. But try and find a place to see it in this country. You can’t stream it; no one will distribute it; the few movie theaters that do show it are brutally punished.

Of course I understand why. Antisemitism is surging on the Trump right — just this week, Joe Rogan had a Churchill-hater and Holocaust-minimizer on his show. It’s endemic on the far left. October 7 was a reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust. On campus in America, Jews have been harassed, spat on, intimidated, demonized — and the pathetic college deans have caved. I understand the outrage at these grotesque double standards. I truly do. 

But there are emotions on the other side too. I am not defending Mahmoud Khalil’s worldview, but I can note that his grandmother was forced to leave her home near Tiberias during the first wave of Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1948; she walked 40 miles to exile, giving birth along the way; and the family lived in tents in a refugee camp in Syria for decades. Now the grandson watches as Israel obliterates Gaza, with thousands of women and children dead, and the US wants to ship all the Gaza Palestinians elsewhere so Jared Kushner can set up some new White Lotuses.

I’m not asking you to agree with Khalil. I am asking you to extend the same empathy to him as you would a Jewish-American traumatized by the surge in hideous antisemitism. I’m asking you to treat him as a human being: flawed, maybe misguided, but human. Not Jewish not Arab but human. I’m not defending Khalil’s rights because I hate Israel. I am defending him because I love America. 

And stop changing the subject. The specific charge matters in a country with the rule of law: this case is not about terrorism even if you want it to be; it’s not about crime, even if you think it should be. It’s about a new McCarthyite apparatus to chill free debate on campus, make criticism of Israel legally hazardous to any noncitizen, and render every noncitizen in this country afraid to speak their mind on a vital matter. It is not a hard case. Rubio has made it a very simple one.

As for all those brave center-right defenders of free speech on campus these last few years? Just see if they are condemning this. And if they aren’t, never take them seriously on this subject again….

Source: The Return Of The McCarthyite Chill

USA Immigration ‘gold card’: What is it, and how could it impact our immigration system? 

Of note:

The Bush Institute is a proponent of increasing legal immigration pathways to the U.S., including raising or eliminating per-country caps on green cards. Will the gold card help? 

While the devil is in the details, right now it seems as if the gold card could be a new legal pathway for potential immigrants. But it could also make it harder to qualify for the existing EB-5 program, making a current legal pathway more difficult.  

There are two major policy issues with this proposal. First, while investment and job creation are great, this program doesn’t bring in the workers the U.S. economy needs to fill the open jobs it already has. Even if you assume that a company would pay a high fee to keep, attract, or retain a foreign worker, that’s not a sustainable model to fill the nearly 8 million open jobs in the U.S. The current EB-5 program doesn’t either. Job creation is a wonderful policy goal, but we still need millions of workers to fill open positions.  

Second, similar visa programs around the world have been criticized for being easy targets for corrupt individuals looking to buy their way into countries. Any investor visa program, whether the proposed gold card or the current EB-5, will need to have appropriate vetting and safeguards built in to protect against this possibility.  

Source: Immigration ‘gold card’: What is it, and how could it impact our immigration system?

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Quite a list, including many I would classify as descriptive and objective, and some that merely correct silly language (e.g., breastfeed + people, breastfeed + person, chestfeed + people, chestfeed + person, pregnant people, pregnant person):

As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

  • accessible
  • activism
  • activists
  • advocacy
  • advocate
  • advocates
  • affirming care
  • all-inclusive
  • allyship
  • anti-racism
  • antiracist
  • assigned at birth
  • assigned female at birth
  • assigned male at birth
  • at risk
  • barrier
  • barriers
  • belong
  • bias
  • biased
  • biased toward
  • biases
  • biases towards
  • biologically female
  • biologically male
  • BIPOC
  • Black
  • breastfeed + people
  • breastfeed + person
  • chestfeed + people
  • chestfeed + person
  • clean energy
  • climate crisis
  • climate science
  • commercial sex worker
  • community diversity
  • community equity
  • confirmation bias
  • cultural competence
  • cultural differences
  • cultural heritage
  • cultural sensitivity
  • culturally appropriate
  • culturally responsive
  • DEI
  • DEIA
  • DEIAB
  • DEIJ
  • disabilities
  • disability
  • discriminated
  • discrimination
  • discriminatory
  • disparity
  • diverse
  • diverse backgrounds
  • diverse communities
  • diverse community
  • diverse group
  • diverse groups
  • diversified
  • diversify
  • diversifying
  • diversity
  • enhance the diversity
  • enhancing diversity
  • environmental quality
  • equal opportunity
  • equality
  • equitable
  • equitableness
  • equity
  • ethnicity
  • excluded
  • exclusion
  • expression
  • female
  • females
  • feminism
  • fostering inclusivity
  • GBV
  • gender
  • gender based
  • gender based violence
  • gender diversity
  • gender identity
  • gender ideology
  • gender-affirming care
  • genders
  • Gulf of Mexico
  • hate speech
  • health disparity
  • health equity
  • hispanic minority
  • historically
  • identity
  • immigrants
  • implicit bias
  • implicit biases
  • inclusion
  • inclusive
  • inclusive leadership
  • inclusiveness
  • inclusivity
  • increase diversity
  • increase the diversity
  • indigenous community
  • inequalities
  • inequality
  • inequitable
  • inequities
  • inequity
  • injustice
  • institutional
  • intersectional
  • intersectionality
  • key groups
  • key people
  • key populations
  • Latinx
  • LGBT
  • LGBTQ
  • marginalize
  • marginalized
  • men who have sex with men
  • mental health
  • minorities
  • minority
  • most risk
  • MSM
  • multicultural
  • Mx
  • Native American
  • non-binary
  • nonbinary
  • oppression
  • oppressive
  • orientation
  • people + uterus
  • people-centered care
  • person-centered
  • person-centered care
  • polarization
  • political
  • pollution
  • pregnant people
  • pregnant person
  • pregnant persons
  • prejudice
  • privilege
  • privileges
  • promote diversity
  • promoting diversity
  • pronoun
  • pronouns
  • prostitute
  • race
  • race and ethnicity
  • racial
  • racial diversity
  • racial identity
  • racial inequality
  • racial justice
  • racially
  • racism
  • segregation
  • sense of belonging
  • sex
  • sexual preferences
  • sexuality
  • social justice
  • sociocultural
  • socioeconomic
  • status
  • stereotype
  • stereotypes
  • systemic
  • systemically
  • they/them
  • trans
  • transgender
  • transsexual
  • trauma
  • traumatic
  • tribal
  • unconscious bias
  • underappreciated
  • underprivileged
  • underrepresentation
  • underrepresented
  • underserved
  • undervalued
  • victim
  • victims
  • vulnerable populations
  • women
  • women and underrepresented

Source: These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Trump Promises To Deport Immigrants For Their Foreign Policy Views

Litigation to watch:

The Trump administration’s attempt to deport a lawful permanent resident protest leader may raise significant First Amendment issues. Arresting an immigrant who was a leader in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University has ignited controversy over the U.S. government’s deportation policies and their potential use to stifle dissent. Donald Trump has promised additional arrests, writing on Truth Social, “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country—never to return again.

The Arrest Of An Immigrant Protester

On March 8, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who graduated from Columbia University in December. Khalil was among the student leaders of Columbia University Apartheid Divest.

“His lawyer, Amy Greer, said the agents who took him into custody at his university-owned home near Columbia initially claimed to be acting on a State Department order to revoke his student visa,” reported the Associated Press. “But when Greer informed them that Khalil was a permanent resident with a green card, they said they would revoke that documentation instead.” According to the AP, Khalil was born in Syria and is being detained in Louisiana at an immigrant detention center.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

“According to a White House official, the Department of Homeland Security started looking for individuals at Columbia University based on Trump’s January antisemitism executive order,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “The White House official said the department found Khalil had participated in ‘pro-Hamas rallies’ and in distributing fliers. The agency presented the information to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who personally signed off on revoking his legal status.”

On March 10, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered, “To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner [Mahmoud Khalil] shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise.”

Using Foreign Policy Grounds To Deport Immigrants Who Protest

According to CNN, the Trump administration plans to arrest and deport individuals using foreign policy grounds. Under the law, “An 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.” (Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.)

Trump seemed to confirm that provision would be used when he wrote on Truth Social: “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here.” (Emphasis added.)

An exception in the law is that an alien shall not be excluded or deported “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

In a deportation proceeding, that exception can be overcome by a letter from the Secretary of State. “A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability,” according to Matter of Ruiz-Massieu, decided as amended June 10, 1999, in the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals.

“I do not think one can challenge Secretary Rubio’s determination in an immigration court that the noncitizen’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially adverse foreign policy consequences described in the letter,” said immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta. “On the other hand, the very constitutionality of the provision may be challenged in the Court of Appeals after the noncitizen has received a removal order under First Amendment principles and their ties to the United States.”

Mehta believes a lawful permanent resident would have the best chance to challenge the law, but a temporary visa holder could succeed, particularly an H-1B and L-1 visa holder. Those visas are dual intent, and the individuals can show ties to the United States.

Temporary visa holders who believe they could be targeted for their foreign policy views might be careful about leaving the United States since Trump administration officials would consider it easier to refuse a visa or deny entry (at a port of entry) than to place an individual in deportation proceedings.

Mehta notes that a lawful permanent resident seeking readmission from a trip abroad who is placed in removal can assert the burden is on DHS to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the individual is inadmissible. However, the burden is on a temporary visa holder to establish they are entitled to admission clearly and beyond doubt.

The Trump administration may use other grounds, such as support for a terrorist organization, to attempt deportation of individuals involved in protests. That may be challenging if the administration is unable to establish some link or coordination with the terrorist organization and the individual who is being deported.

Source: Trump Promises To Deport Immigrants For Their Foreign Policy Views

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions

Will see if SCOTUS accepts application first or decides to shut it down immediately (SCOTUS has accepted application):

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow restrictions on birthright citizenship to partly take effect while legal fights play out.

In emergency applications filed at the high court on Thursday, the administration asked the justices to narrow court orders entered by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that blocked the order President Donald Trump signed shortly after beginning his second term.

The order currently is blocked nationwide. Three federal appeals courts have rejected the administration’s pleas, including one in Massachusetts on Tuesday. 

The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such children….

Source: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions