Trump's Police Are Now Disappearing Students for Their Op-Eds(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Trump's Police Are Now Disappearing Students for Their Op-Eds
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/27/trumps-secret-police-are-now-disappearing-students-for-their-op-eds/
67 comments
Rubio is a sad sack of garbage, using the same mud slinging always on the attack belittling everyone everywhere vileness that is this fucked up administration's only way of coping with reality & the rest of the world.
You're going to take the word of a lunatic who signed off on not just deporting random people, but shipping them into slavery at an El Salvador super prison? A dude who has an autism tattoo in support of his brother? A dude who has his soccer team's logo as his tattoo?
Rubio & this administration are deeply unserious, acting as capriciously as possible. There's been no evidence, and incredible refusal to even allow the courts their legal chance to review grievances filed for Alien Enemies Act, as is required.
Having the head of state going around bullying people who wrote to the college Op-Eds is insane. This is so far below their status. Rubio is pissing his panties because someone wrote an op-ed accurately and simply asking the college to please recognize & act on a lawful & decent vote by the Tufts Community Union Senate is not a horrible act. This isn't putting mud on the couch or spray painting a kitchen, this is very basic & civil free speech, and Rubio is pissing on the bill of rights that Americans for 250 years have been proud of. Because he's a monster & a coward, in bed with other monsters and cowards.
You're going to take the word of a lunatic who signed off on not just deporting random people, but shipping them into slavery at an El Salvador super prison? A dude who has an autism tattoo in support of his brother? A dude who has his soccer team's logo as his tattoo?
Rubio & this administration are deeply unserious, acting as capriciously as possible. There's been no evidence, and incredible refusal to even allow the courts their legal chance to review grievances filed for Alien Enemies Act, as is required.
Having the head of state going around bullying people who wrote to the college Op-Eds is insane. This is so far below their status. Rubio is pissing his panties because someone wrote an op-ed accurately and simply asking the college to please recognize & act on a lawful & decent vote by the Tufts Community Union Senate is not a horrible act. This isn't putting mud on the couch or spray painting a kitchen, this is very basic & civil free speech, and Rubio is pissing on the bill of rights that Americans for 250 years have been proud of. Because he's a monster & a coward, in bed with other monsters and cowards.
Be that as it may, I don't think that providing additional context from either side should be perceived as "taking the word of a lunatic" just because it happens to feed your confirmation bias.
And on that note, it seems that you agree at least in theory that there has not been any actual evidence presented, yet you seemingly won't accept it because you still assume that writing an op-ed is the only thing they have done, and you've already made up your mind on this matter.
Why don't we wait until the evidence comes out before jumping to conclusions?
I think it's entirely possible the student could have actually done something wrong, and either Rubio is simply not revealing it, or he actually doesn't know the details and was only told smaller bits from someone else. OR, maybe the student did not do anything besides the op-ed and the government is blowing it way out of proportion... but either seems just as plausible to me.
And on that note, it seems that you agree at least in theory that there has not been any actual evidence presented, yet you seemingly won't accept it because you still assume that writing an op-ed is the only thing they have done, and you've already made up your mind on this matter.
Why don't we wait until the evidence comes out before jumping to conclusions?
I think it's entirely possible the student could have actually done something wrong, and either Rubio is simply not revealing it, or he actually doesn't know the details and was only told smaller bits from someone else. OR, maybe the student did not do anything besides the op-ed and the government is blowing it way out of proportion... but either seems just as plausible to me.
> Why don't we wait until the evidence comes out before jumping to conclusions?
Because people are being taken from the streets. The onus is on the people arresting her to show that they are in the right to do this. It's the United States and generally you expect people to be treated as if they're innocent until there's proof of their guilt.
If they don't know why they're do this then they shouldn't be doing it.
Because people are being taken from the streets. The onus is on the people arresting her to show that they are in the right to do this. It's the United States and generally you expect people to be treated as if they're innocent until there's proof of their guilt.
If they don't know why they're do this then they shouldn't be doing it.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also don't think that not giving evidence always means they are arresting the wrong person every time.
It's not that I trust them, I don't, and I disagree with their tactics too, which I think are being (slowly) dealt with politically and judicially, but again I don't think it inherently means everyone they arrest is completely innocent.
It's not that I trust them, I don't, and I disagree with their tactics too, which I think are being (slowly) dealt with politically and judicially, but again I don't think it inherently means everyone they arrest is completely innocent.
It turns out there is at least one innocent person down in El Salvador who they claim they "can't" get back.
I agree with you that not providing evidence at the point of arrest isn't inherently indicative of ill intent but this administration refers to people wrongly arrested as "collateral," pays money for people to go to prison outside of American jurisdiction to make sure there's no fallout if they make mistakes etc etc. Is there no line where your trust level would shift?
I agree with you that not providing evidence at the point of arrest isn't inherently indicative of ill intent but this administration refers to people wrongly arrested as "collateral," pays money for people to go to prison outside of American jurisdiction to make sure there's no fallout if they make mistakes etc etc. Is there no line where your trust level would shift?
Oh I absolutely don't trust them, never have. I even mentioned that in the last message. I was just arguing on principle because people love to latch on to sensationalized stories that lack context and evidence... and usually it comes out later that it wasn't as big of a sky-is-falling event as people thought.
It's entirely possible that isn't the case here though, I don't have enough information to say. If you're referring to Abrego Garcia, it later came out that the "administrative error" was due to an informant claiming he was a gang member, but I don't think there was ever any evidence of that, so I think it's still an unknown and an ongoing case.
Certainly I think everyone should be entitled to due process though, illegal immigrant or not. And I can't tell if many of this admin's actions are willful deception or gross incompetence, or both.
Your comment that they pay money for people to go to prison explicitly "to make sure there's no fallout if they make mistakes" sure seems unfounded and sensationalized to me though. It might look like that but I have not seen any proof that it's intentional in the way you say it.
It's entirely possible that isn't the case here though, I don't have enough information to say. If you're referring to Abrego Garcia, it later came out that the "administrative error" was due to an informant claiming he was a gang member, but I don't think there was ever any evidence of that, so I think it's still an unknown and an ongoing case.
Certainly I think everyone should be entitled to due process though, illegal immigrant or not. And I can't tell if many of this admin's actions are willful deception or gross incompetence, or both.
Your comment that they pay money for people to go to prison explicitly "to make sure there's no fallout if they make mistakes" sure seems unfounded and sensationalized to me though. It might look like that but I have not seen any proof that it's intentional in the way you say it.
> Why don't we wait until the evidence comes out
Why do you assume this will ever happen?
Why do you assume this will ever happen?
I'm not aware of any cases where it hasn't
When has it not?
How about the men already mentioned who have been shipped off to El Salvador? Action taken, people imprisoned in a foreign country where they conveniently no longer have access to the rights (until recently) afforded to them by virtue of being in the US, no evidence of any crimes committed has come out, yet the punishment is already locked in.
It is still being litigated and I am confident the evidence will come out. And if there isn't any, there are procedures for dealing with that too.
What procedures? Both the administration and Judge Boasberg assert that the court has no jurisdiction over the prisoners in El Salvador. Now that they have been remanded to El Salvador the US doesn't have jurisdiction at all.
What evidence? The administration has lready said in court that they have no evidence some of the men committed any crimes.
What's still being litigated is if the administration will be able to send any more flights to El Salvador.
What evidence? The administration has lready said in court that they have no evidence some of the men committed any crimes.
What's still being litigated is if the administration will be able to send any more flights to El Salvador.
Now that they have been remanded to El Salvador the US doesn't have jurisdiction at all.
The latest is because the US government is paying El Salvador $6 million dollars to keep these men incarcerated, the US essentially has jurisdiction over them.
Also, because some women were included by mistake, they had to be flown back to the US… so we know the US government could have them returned to the US if they wanted to.
The latest is because the US government is paying El Salvador $6 million dollars to keep these men incarcerated, the US essentially has jurisdiction over them.
Also, because some women were included by mistake, they had to be flown back to the US… so we know the US government could have them returned to the US if they wanted to.
> The latest is because the US government is paying El Salvador $6 million dollars to keep these men incarcerated, the US essentially has jurisdiction over them.
What's the basis for how this works legally? Would the US no longer have commitments if the deal was done for free?
> Also, because some women were included by mistake, they had to be flown back to the US… so we know the US government could have them returned to the US if they wanted to.
Were they returned by request of the US? And does that mean that the US has to follow certain procedures as if those people were still under their jurisdiction?
It seems more likely that El Salvador rejected them because their prison is only for men.
What's the basis for how this works legally? Would the US no longer have commitments if the deal was done for free?
> Also, because some women were included by mistake, they had to be flown back to the US… so we know the US government could have them returned to the US if they wanted to.
Were they returned by request of the US? And does that mean that the US has to follow certain procedures as if those people were still under their jurisdiction?
It seems more likely that El Salvador rejected them because their prison is only for men.
And right on que we have someone who the administration admits they wrongly sent, but also say the courts don't have the authority to bring him back:
https://archive.ph/LGs2Z
https://archive.ph/LGs2Z
Thanks for sharing, I actually just returned to share the same news. No one saw this coming huh?
Given the mangotude of hundreds of students being told they need to leave, the government should indeed be making very strong very bold cases.
But allegedly folks are being told to get out for resharing a post or two. Maybe more evidence could come to light! I think the government has a strong mandate to make a very strong case.
But I am highly highly dubious more than a couple of these folks are doing anything even marginally bad (in fact many i think are doing great good speaking civilly & responsibly about very bad unnecessary human suffering being caused, which is patriotic as hell imo).
This is the administration blowing up the 1st amendment, having themselves a little tantrum. Rather than say anything real, Rubio's likening the situation to trashing the couch and spray painting the kitchen is an invented offense to mask how utterly inadequate & woefully juvenile this administration is behaving, how they have nothing whatsoever to justify this political violence they are casually inflicting.
Also notable that many of these universities rely on having international students to foot the bill for American students. Ruining this funding stream further's a strong desire the right has to end universities and college, which is incredibly low & cruel terrible for everyone except the incredibly wealthy. https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/1/24056238/conservatives...
But allegedly folks are being told to get out for resharing a post or two. Maybe more evidence could come to light! I think the government has a strong mandate to make a very strong case.
But I am highly highly dubious more than a couple of these folks are doing anything even marginally bad (in fact many i think are doing great good speaking civilly & responsibly about very bad unnecessary human suffering being caused, which is patriotic as hell imo).
This is the administration blowing up the 1st amendment, having themselves a little tantrum. Rather than say anything real, Rubio's likening the situation to trashing the couch and spray painting the kitchen is an invented offense to mask how utterly inadequate & woefully juvenile this administration is behaving, how they have nothing whatsoever to justify this political violence they are casually inflicting.
Also notable that many of these universities rely on having international students to foot the bill for American students. Ruining this funding stream further's a strong desire the right has to end universities and college, which is incredibly low & cruel terrible for everyone except the incredibly wealthy. https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/1/24056238/conservatives...
Seems fine by me
It's on the gov to prove that she took part in any violence that Rubio mentioned first. That has not happened.
Read the court cases... justice already determined he was reasonably likely a gang member
Who is 'he'? This thread and your comment is for Rumeysa Ozturk.
Following that closing analogy: it's not only a foreign "guest" or person in your house that protests, many of the people in your house protest in the same or a more aggresive way. But the person doing it by writing a critique is the problem "in your house"? inconsistent reasoning.
"DHS + ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas" — a high ranking government official https://x.com/TriciaOhio/status/1904982944474648587
Her op-ed never mentioned Hamas by name. This seems to be the closest it came: "systemic changes that the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination" — https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj
Despite the headline, the author admits they don't actually know that the op-ed was a reason for the arrest — "She was disappeared without due process or explanation — only later did we learn she had been renditioned to a detention center in Louisiana."
Her op-ed never mentioned Hamas by name. This seems to be the closest it came: "systemic changes that the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination" — https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj
Despite the headline, the author admits they don't actually know that the op-ed was a reason for the arrest — "She was disappeared without due process or explanation — only later did we learn she had been renditioned to a detention center in Louisiana."
This is so utterly frightening.
And disturbing to see how quickly stories like this are flagged into invisibility on HN.
edit: luckily enough people vouched for the story to be rescued.
edit: luckily enough people vouched for the story to be rescued.
The only way for me to find these stories is to use HN Algolia and sort by most popular in the last 24 hours. I guess lot of people do the same
You can use https://news.ycombinator.com/active too
It's on the front page right now.
Update since this was written - she "...cannot be deported without a court order, a US judge ordered on Friday."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/28/rumeysa-oztu...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/28/rumeysa-oztu...
As of Friday, district court judge has ruled Ms Ozturk cannot be deported without the approval of the court.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detained-tufts-student...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detained-tufts-student...
Genuine question because I try to avoid all the Trump and DOGE stuff. What’s the deal with all the Canadian and European border events? I thought all the focus was on Mexico and illegal immigrants? Of all things, who cares about Canada and Europe and why all the fuss? Why go through the trouble over these students? Someone actually remembered the student newspaper article they wrote and now have the opportunity to go after them?
Is it simply because the border agents feel empowered under Trump or is it bigger than that?
Is it simply because the border agents feel empowered under Trump or is it bigger than that?
Read the Jakarta Method: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53054943-the-jakarta-met...
Let this be a lesson to any foreigners thinking about visiting the United States.
> She was disappeared without due process or explanation
Then how do you know it was only because of an op-ed?
Then how do you know it was only because of an op-ed?
You are right that they can't know that, but the right conclusion according to US laws is that she is innocent until proven otherwise.
So whatever it is, and it seems not to have been uncovered, the "response" seems unmeasured.
So whatever it is, and it seems not to have been uncovered, the "response" seems unmeasured.
That's the funny thing about due process. It allows us to understand what happened and why.
Just as we should assume innocence until proven-guilty, we should assume the arresting authorities have terrible bad reasons until they show us good ones.
> Friends and colleagues of Ms Öztürk said she was not closely involved in pro-Palestinian protests that broke out on campuses last spring. They said her only activism was co-authoring the Tufts op-ed.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/105107664
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/105107664
Even if she was involved in protests the Constitution applies to non-citizens as well.
She has the right to protest provided she has committed no crime.
She has the right to protest provided she has committed no crime.
I believe the terms of student visas could technically prohibit protesting for things unrelated to your field of study, if a judge decided to interpret it that way.
Surely constitutional rights take priority?
Except violating the conditions of your visa would be a crime, no matter how free your speech is. And the First Amendment is about criticizing the US Government, not Israel.
The first amendment is about freedom of speech, not about criticising either the US or Israeli government. I don't believe that one can agree to waiver their constitutional rights so I'm not sure those visa conditions would be legal.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition *the Government* for a redress of grievances.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition *the Government* for a redress of grievances.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging *the freedom of speech, or of the press;* or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can only protest the things that will not make it a crime. Protesting criminally is a crime.
Writing differing views is not a crime. Still, even if what she did was somehow illegal or they had a legimate legal reason to revoke her visa she deserves to be able to face her accuser and not be abducted and denied her life, liberty and property without due process.
Sorry it wasnt clear but that was my attempt at pure sarcasm.
I thought the situation is absolutely nonsensical. Being able to disagree with anyone is part of our social fabric. Once you ban that then wild stuff starts to happen.
I thought the situation is absolutely nonsensical. Being able to disagree with anyone is part of our social fabric. Once you ban that then wild stuff starts to happen.
Her laywers have said that's what it appears to be over, also that she has not been charged with or accused of any crime. Noone else including the DHS have been able to show any other reason.
That's a fair question. She has no interesting online activity besides that op-ed, so hard to see what else it could be.
Rubio made a very vague statement:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/29/us/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-u...
Alleging that she was part of a larger group that committed crimes... but if that's the case, why didn't they arrest anyone else who was there?
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/29/us/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-u...
Alleging that she was part of a larger group that committed crimes... but if that's the case, why didn't they arrest anyone else who was there?
The crime is writing the op-ed. The group are the editors and other writers. They cannot be arrested - they dont have VISAs because they are US citizens.
I was referring to her being at the site of a protest. Why weren't any other protesters arrested? You don't need a visa to be arrested.
Because you cannot arrest US citizen just because they are at some gathering. You cant do that to someone on VISA.
What you can do is take someones VISA on basis of small gathering that you call protest.
What you can do is take someones VISA on basis of small gathering that you call protest.
> Rubio suggested without evidence she was involved in disruptive student protests
I wasn't trying to imply she was merely there, as Rubio is saying they participated. They never said the op-ed was related... so my question is, if the only reasoning is taking part in the protest, then why arrest nobody else who was there?
I wasn't trying to imply she was merely there, as Rubio is saying they participated. They never said the op-ed was related... so my question is, if the only reasoning is taking part in the protest, then why arrest nobody else who was there?
Maybe Rubio is not the most trustful source... i mean i said it before. They probably can't really get to US citizens. But they can take away peoples VISA on a whim. The reason is to send a message.
“We revoked her visa. It’s an F-1 visa, I believe. We revoked it, and here’s why—I’ve said it everywhere, and I’ll say it again.
Let me be abundantly clear: If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you’re coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos—we’re not giving you that visa.
If you lie, get the visa, and then engage in that kind of behavior once you’re here, we’re going to revoke it. And once your visa is revoked, you’re no longer legally in the United States. Like every country, we have the right to remove you. It’s that simple.
It’s crazy—stupid, even—for any country to let people in who say, ‘I’m going to your universities to riot, take over libraries, and harass people.’ I don’t care what movement you’re with. Why would any country allow that?
We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree—not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses. If you use your visa to do that, we’ll take it away. And I encourage every country to do the same.
Every country has the right to decide who enters as a visitor. If you invite me to your house for dinner and I start putting mud on your couch and spray-painting your kitchen, you’re going to kick me out. We’ll do the same if you come to the U.S. and cause a ruckus.
We don’t want that here. Go do it in your own country—but not in ours.”