Is there another angle, given the calls for divestment and then putting her name to an op-ed demanding the university implement the student senate’s resolutions, that she is lobbying for potential federal monies, which plausibly could be tied up in various ways in Tufts investments in Israel to be yanked in order to hurt Israel in its effort to destroy Hamas and retrieve the hostages, including our own? Isn’t that in some sense supporting terrorism and lobbying a material effect of sorts that would benefit Hamas? That seems like an inappropriate contravention of our interest, certainly, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, it still seems grounds to revoke a VISA given to her solely to study here. As foreign guest here she has no right to demand that, no? But that is effectively what she has signed her name to.
Isn’t there another potential issue that these anti-Israel organizations she’s arguing on behalf of have financial ties to Iran and other terrorist organizations? Even if she is unwittingly being their mouthpiece, she is still in some sense lending support to proxies of hostile actors and grounds for revoking the VISA and deportation.
Ultimately, what is relevant is the nature of both Ozturk's and Khalil's presence here in the United States is that is has been conditional.
Every person in any country on a visa of any kind is there solely on the sufference of that country. Every person in the United States on any sort of visa is here solely on the sufference of the United States. That is an unavoidable fundamental difference between the citizen and the non-citizen.
In the United States, a visa is conditional upon not supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas, or endorsing any of their actions or activities. When those conditions are violated, there should be no surprise that deportation is among the inevitable consequences.
You’re welcome. I appreciate that you avoid all the hyperbole and other nonsense that some writers think makes their points when all it does is expose their worst traits and distracts from the story at hand
Thank you for this cogent analysis complete with citations. If prior republican and democrat administrations had followed this rationale, they could have spared us the decades of infiltration leading us to our current crisis.
What we do well to understand is that the core rationale for government throughout history has been the defense of the realm, and defense of the polity within that realm.
It is not cruel for the American government to prioritize the needs and interests of the American people, but Constitutional duty
It is not hegemony to favor American allies over their enemies, but prudent geopolitics.
It is not authoritarian for government to enforce the law. That is the essence of ethical government.
We should never criticize the government for carrying out the letter of the law. If we do not like the law, We The People have the right and the responsibility to change the laws.
Peter, this is outstanding. 🇺🇲 Thank you for keeping the 1A Rights separated from Visa Approval, two different animals. 📜 ✍🏼 ⚖️🗽 Excellent research. Keep it coming, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
Andrew Sullivan, like so many who aspire to wear a particular political label, routinely commits the logical sin of mistaking personal bias for factual reality.
I will freely admit to having a number of biases, and even to being somewhat biased in favor of Donald Trump.
However, and at the risk of pretentiousness, my own sense of integrity requires that every thesis I advance in All Facts Matter be substantiated with an abundance of factual evidence, and that all the evidence I submit be available for everyone to interrogate independently.
That is why I archive media articles before I link to them, and why I footnote Supreme Court cases, statutes, and other research materials. I might get the analysis wrong, but I will always stand by the quality of my research.
I’ve discovered that people don’t know even the most common sense immigration law. They don’t know expedited deportations (no hearings), they don’t understand that you certify you don’t support terrorists or terrorism directly or otherwise when you apply for a VISA/Green Card. They don’t know that all the presidents have used these common everyday laws to deport or deny entry.
I’ve also noticed some wild assumption that you must deport back to their homeland.
People are completely unaware of the happenings in the real world.
Couldn’t agree more. Most people that I’ve had this debate with are parroting what they hear on TV or in SM. If you see a narrative emerge, guaranteed that those exact words will be spread into the immigration debate we all have with individuals here on SS.
Some are surprised what the laws say. And even more are surprised that Obama did it too - to a lesser extent, save the enemy aliens act.
It’s also the same audience that routinely rotates symbols on their SM profile - Ukraine flag, a syringe, Palestinian flag, the “=“, etc. They’re always chasing that next great thing to chatter about. Even if those things are contradictory.
People are unaware of many of the crucial facts surrounding many events in the world.
That is the result of corporate media prioritizing a preferred narrative over the facts. Of slicing quotes and videos to produce salacious soundbites. Of pushing propaganda.
All Facts Matter exists to provide the facts, the evidence, and the data corporate media will not provide.
Thank you for this. Incredibly succinct explanation of our visa statutes and legal repercussions for those who abuse the visa privileges. Now I have sound ammo for those bellyaching about the loss of free speech! You know, the same ones who a supported censorship in the time of Covid and during the 2020 election. Them. And for that, I thank you.
What happened during the COVID Pandemic Panic and regarding J6 was a Constitutional abomination. Those need to never happen again and I hope people will always take the firm stance to ensure that they never happen again.
But not every battle is a battle over Free Speech. We always need to be fighting that battle that is before us, not the one we are thinking about in our minds.
Well done. And on another point all the due process hullabaloo is likewise migrated. Due process is a legal term and means different things in different legal contexts. At its most basic it means a right to notice and to be heard. All of these people have lawyers, have been or will shortly be notified of the basis of the deportation and have court proceedings scheduled.
Exactly so. And the plain text of 8 USC §1201(i) limits judicial review of a visa revocation to only a most perfunctory confirmation that the technicalities of the revocation are met. A judge does not have a legal basis for reviewing the revocation decision itself.
It always seems to me that the root problem is that our educational system no longer teaches young people HOW to think. They fall for this leftist, terrorist-based propaganda because they are not educated in how to reason, how to spot logical fallacies, how to clearly formulate their premises, how to not be fooled by clever rhetoric.
Peter, one of the many reasons I adore you is the amazing clarity of your reasoning. Your mind is a thing of beauty! If every person on earth could think as well as you do, we would have such a wonderful civilization. Your writings are on par with some of the historic greats of exposition, such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Sowell. Never underestimate yourself, Peter, you are indeed Magnificent Man!
Rumeysa Ozturk violated the conditions of her visa. The cancellation of that visa is exactly what is to be expected under the standards Secretary Rubio has laid out.
This is how the handles visas, as well as violations of the terms and conditions attached to them.
Screw the conveniently movable govt. designation of who is a 'terrorist'. And definitely screw any prohibition of verbal support or criticism of the USG or out 'allies'.
Under Reagan Afghan rebels were 'noble freedom fighters'. Then they somehow became 'terrorists'.
A few years ago people burning neighborhoods and car dealer were 'mostly peaceful protesters' now they're 'domestic terrorists'.
People peacefully protesting a stolen election were 'insurrectionists' now they're upright citizens...
This *is* an attack on free speech and is not being done in the interests of the American people but at the behest of the small hat handlers of the US government.
It would be (has been) immoral to protect enemies of the state. Resident aliens are NOT afforded the same rights and privileges as US Citizens. Talk to me when the Administration starts locking up American Citizens for speaking out against the State (oh wait, they already speak against the State. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and so many others. Each and every day. And yet, no one has been locked up. Interesting.), and THEN we can talk. Until then, I gotta say, I am thrilled to have an administration who enforces the laws, protects its citizenry, and keeps the country safe. Break the law, pay the price. It’s about damn time.
Rumesya Ozturk has not been charged with a crime. She has not, to my knowledge, been charged with giving material support to Hamas (a crime under 18 USC §2339A). I would oppose such a charge. A mere utterance valorizing Hamas is offensive, but it does not fit the definition of "material support."
The law does make a distinction between "support" and "material support". The latter is a crime. The former is a violation of established predicates for both an immigrant visa and permanent resident status.
Exactly. It’s a visa revocation, not a criminal offense. My “locking up” comments were directed toward US citizens with the hope of exposing the fear-mongers among us. I’m not nearly as eloquent as you..
How moral is it for a person to violate the terms and conditions of their visa?
Hamas is designated a foreign terrorist organization. That's not open to dispute.
October 7, 2023 is accounted as a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. That's not open to dispute.
The terms and conditions of a visa include a prohibition on supporting terrorists, terrorism in general, and any terrorist activity. That's explicitly stated in 8 USC §1182.
If a non-citizen makes any expression which endorses or espouses terrorist activity, they violate that prohibition, which they accepted when they accepted the visa.
The visa is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted at the discretion of the State Department and it is revoked at the discretion of the State Department. Without a visa, a person is subject to deportation. The law explicitly states this.
There has never been a time in US history when this was not understood to be legitimate exercise of government authority.
No, this is not and has never been a question of Free Speech.
Is there another angle, given the calls for divestment and then putting her name to an op-ed demanding the university implement the student senate’s resolutions, that she is lobbying for potential federal monies, which plausibly could be tied up in various ways in Tufts investments in Israel to be yanked in order to hurt Israel in its effort to destroy Hamas and retrieve the hostages, including our own? Isn’t that in some sense supporting terrorism and lobbying a material effect of sorts that would benefit Hamas? That seems like an inappropriate contravention of our interest, certainly, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, it still seems grounds to revoke a VISA given to her solely to study here. As foreign guest here she has no right to demand that, no? But that is effectively what she has signed her name to.
Isn’t there another potential issue that these anti-Israel organizations she’s arguing on behalf of have financial ties to Iran and other terrorist organizations? Even if she is unwittingly being their mouthpiece, she is still in some sense lending support to proxies of hostile actors and grounds for revoking the VISA and deportation.
Ultimately, what is relevant is the nature of both Ozturk's and Khalil's presence here in the United States is that is has been conditional.
Every person in any country on a visa of any kind is there solely on the sufference of that country. Every person in the United States on any sort of visa is here solely on the sufference of the United States. That is an unavoidable fundamental difference between the citizen and the non-citizen.
In the United States, a visa is conditional upon not supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas, or endorsing any of their actions or activities. When those conditions are violated, there should be no surprise that deportation is among the inevitable consequences.
Very impressive, well written and sticks to the facts, thank you Peter.
You’re welcome. I appreciate that you avoid all the hyperbole and other nonsense that some writers think makes their points when all it does is expose their worst traits and distracts from the story at hand
I admit it…I’m a policy wonk. I’m a nerd, a geek…I genuinely think the facts are the coolest part of any news narrative.
And over the years I’ve come to realize that if we aren’t looking at the facts we’re deceiving ourselves. That’s just never a good idea.
I want people to not be deceived.
Thanks!
Thank you for this cogent analysis complete with citations. If prior republican and democrat administrations had followed this rationale, they could have spared us the decades of infiltration leading us to our current crisis.
What we do well to understand is that the core rationale for government throughout history has been the defense of the realm, and defense of the polity within that realm.
It is not cruel for the American government to prioritize the needs and interests of the American people, but Constitutional duty
It is not hegemony to favor American allies over their enemies, but prudent geopolitics.
It is not authoritarian for government to enforce the law. That is the essence of ethical government.
We should never criticize the government for carrying out the letter of the law. If we do not like the law, We The People have the right and the responsibility to change the laws.
BYEEEEEE!
Deport
Peter, this is outstanding. 🇺🇲 Thank you for keeping the 1A Rights separated from Visa Approval, two different animals. 📜 ✍🏼 ⚖️🗽 Excellent research. Keep it coming, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
Thank you for your kind words! I shall indeed “keep it coming”!
I hope someone has shared this with Andrew Sullivan. The poor guy is suffering over there.
Andrew Sullivan, like so many who aspire to wear a particular political label, routinely commits the logical sin of mistaking personal bias for factual reality.
I will freely admit to having a number of biases, and even to being somewhat biased in favor of Donald Trump.
However, and at the risk of pretentiousness, my own sense of integrity requires that every thesis I advance in All Facts Matter be substantiated with an abundance of factual evidence, and that all the evidence I submit be available for everyone to interrogate independently.
That is why I archive media articles before I link to them, and why I footnote Supreme Court cases, statutes, and other research materials. I might get the analysis wrong, but I will always stand by the quality of my research.
https://foreignlocal.substack.com/p/arent-those-who-support-terrorism
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/fall-europe?utm_source=daily_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4336
Hear hear.
I’ve discovered that people don’t know even the most common sense immigration law. They don’t know expedited deportations (no hearings), they don’t understand that you certify you don’t support terrorists or terrorism directly or otherwise when you apply for a VISA/Green Card. They don’t know that all the presidents have used these common everyday laws to deport or deny entry.
I’ve also noticed some wild assumption that you must deport back to their homeland.
People are completely unaware of the happenings in the real world.
Couldn’t agree more. Most people that I’ve had this debate with are parroting what they hear on TV or in SM. If you see a narrative emerge, guaranteed that those exact words will be spread into the immigration debate we all have with individuals here on SS.
Some are surprised what the laws say. And even more are surprised that Obama did it too - to a lesser extent, save the enemy aliens act.
It’s also the same audience that routinely rotates symbols on their SM profile - Ukraine flag, a syringe, Palestinian flag, the “=“, etc. They’re always chasing that next great thing to chatter about. Even if those things are contradictory.
We live in wild times. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! I shall!
People are unaware of many of the crucial facts surrounding many events in the world.
That is the result of corporate media prioritizing a preferred narrative over the facts. Of slicing quotes and videos to produce salacious soundbites. Of pushing propaganda.
All Facts Matter exists to provide the facts, the evidence, and the data corporate media will not provide.
The facts do matter.
Thank you for this. Incredibly succinct explanation of our visa statutes and legal repercussions for those who abuse the visa privileges. Now I have sound ammo for those bellyaching about the loss of free speech! You know, the same ones who a supported censorship in the time of Covid and during the 2020 election. Them. And for that, I thank you.
I am very glad you find my work useful. Thank you for the kind words!
What happened during the COVID Pandemic Panic and regarding J6 was a Constitutional abomination. Those need to never happen again and I hope people will always take the firm stance to ensure that they never happen again.
But not every battle is a battle over Free Speech. We always need to be fighting that battle that is before us, not the one we are thinking about in our minds.
Biden's whole presidency and the coverup was a Constitutional abomination.
Well done. And on another point all the due process hullabaloo is likewise migrated. Due process is a legal term and means different things in different legal contexts. At its most basic it means a right to notice and to be heard. All of these people have lawyers, have been or will shortly be notified of the basis of the deportation and have court proceedings scheduled.
Exactly so. And the plain text of 8 USC §1201(i) limits judicial review of a visa revocation to only a most perfunctory confirmation that the technicalities of the revocation are met. A judge does not have a legal basis for reviewing the revocation decision itself.
Aaand goodbye savage, take your savage mindset back to your home country.
It always seems to me that the root problem is that our educational system no longer teaches young people HOW to think. They fall for this leftist, terrorist-based propaganda because they are not educated in how to reason, how to spot logical fallacies, how to clearly formulate their premises, how to not be fooled by clever rhetoric.
Peter, one of the many reasons I adore you is the amazing clarity of your reasoning. Your mind is a thing of beauty! If every person on earth could think as well as you do, we would have such a wonderful civilization. Your writings are on par with some of the historic greats of exposition, such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Sowell. Never underestimate yourself, Peter, you are indeed Magnificent Man!
She does not belong here.
Rumeysa Ozturk violated the conditions of her visa. The cancellation of that visa is exactly what is to be expected under the standards Secretary Rubio has laid out.
This is how the handles visas, as well as violations of the terms and conditions attached to them.
Yep, sentenced to home confinement till she can be returned at the first opportunity.
Send her home!
Screw the conveniently movable govt. designation of who is a 'terrorist'. And definitely screw any prohibition of verbal support or criticism of the USG or out 'allies'.
Under Reagan Afghan rebels were 'noble freedom fighters'. Then they somehow became 'terrorists'.
A few years ago people burning neighborhoods and car dealer were 'mostly peaceful protesters' now they're 'domestic terrorists'.
People peacefully protesting a stolen election were 'insurrectionists' now they're upright citizens...
This *is* an attack on free speech and is not being done in the interests of the American people but at the behest of the small hat handlers of the US government.
How moral or MAGA is *that*?
It would be (has been) immoral to protect enemies of the state. Resident aliens are NOT afforded the same rights and privileges as US Citizens. Talk to me when the Administration starts locking up American Citizens for speaking out against the State (oh wait, they already speak against the State. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and so many others. Each and every day. And yet, no one has been locked up. Interesting.), and THEN we can talk. Until then, I gotta say, I am thrilled to have an administration who enforces the laws, protects its citizenry, and keeps the country safe. Break the law, pay the price. It’s about damn time.
I do want to make one essential clarification:
Rumesya Ozturk has not been charged with a crime. She has not, to my knowledge, been charged with giving material support to Hamas (a crime under 18 USC §2339A). I would oppose such a charge. A mere utterance valorizing Hamas is offensive, but it does not fit the definition of "material support."
The law does make a distinction between "support" and "material support". The latter is a crime. The former is a violation of established predicates for both an immigrant visa and permanent resident status.
Exactly. It’s a visa revocation, not a criminal offense. My “locking up” comments were directed toward US citizens with the hope of exposing the fear-mongers among us. I’m not nearly as eloquent as you..
I understood your point, and you made it quite well.
I also understand how fear-mongers love to pick nits. I figure sometimes it is a good idea to get there first and take away their talking point.
How moral is it for a person to violate the terms and conditions of their visa?
Hamas is designated a foreign terrorist organization. That's not open to dispute.
October 7, 2023 is accounted as a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. That's not open to dispute.
The terms and conditions of a visa include a prohibition on supporting terrorists, terrorism in general, and any terrorist activity. That's explicitly stated in 8 USC §1182.
If a non-citizen makes any expression which endorses or espouses terrorist activity, they violate that prohibition, which they accepted when they accepted the visa.
The visa is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted at the discretion of the State Department and it is revoked at the discretion of the State Department. Without a visa, a person is subject to deportation. The law explicitly states this.
There has never been a time in US history when this was not understood to be legitimate exercise of government authority.
No, this is not and has never been a question of Free Speech.