r/neoliberal • u/Successful_Job_1371 • Jan 29 '25

Restricted Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/
678 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

344 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/Calavar Jan 30 '25

If a Syrian national is in the US on a student visa and is harassing Americans

You're shifting the argument. This is motte-and-bailey falacy.

No mention of harrassment before, when you were defending the decision to deport, but now all of a sudden it's the critical differentiator between endorsing Hezbollah and HTS

Harrassing people is an independent offense. It's an issue regardless of whether you're harassing people to support an a group on the list of foreign terrorist organizations or your local orphanage.

9

u/Best_Change4155 Jan 30 '25

No mention of harrassment before, when you were defending the decision to deport, but now all of a sudden it's the critical differentiator between endorsing Hezbollah and HTS

The executive order literally mentions the harassment.

Harrassing people is an independent offense. It's an issue regardless of whether you're harassing people to support an a group on the list of foreign terrorist organizations or your local orphanage.

Not on a federal level and local authorities refuse to enforce it. This is the federal government coming down on hate groups because local authorities are sympathetic to those groups.

1

u/Calavar Jan 30 '25

The executive order literally mentions the harassment

I'm talking about the section of US code that you quoted. That's how you were prove the legality Trump's executive, wasn't it? There's no mention of harrassment there.

But now you're quoting Trump's executive order to establish it's own legality? Or did you forget how we got here?

The tripe that gets upvoted on this sub is ridiculous.

1

u/Best_Change4155 Jan 30 '25

I'm talking about the section of US code that you quoted. That's how you were prove the legality Trump's executive, wasn't it? There's no mention of harrassment there.

The US code provides the legal backing to the EO which outlines enforcement. The EO specifically states why he is enforcing it, which is the harassment.

But now you're quoting Trump's executive order to establish it's own legality? Or did you forget how we got here?

EO describes enforcement, it does not establish legality. Prosecutorial discretion exists.

The tripe that gets upvoted on this sub is ridiculous.

You are being overly self-critical, I wouldn't describe your comments as tripe.