US pauses new student visa interviews as it mulls expanding social media vetting(politico.com)
politico.com
US pauses new student visa interviews as it mulls expanding social media vetting
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/trump-team-orders-stop-to-new-student-visa-interviews-as-it-weighs-expanding-social-media-vetting-00370501
234 comments
The whole idea of looking at people's social media for undesirable political views is contrary to the spirit of the first amendment. It's fine for private universities to vet their incoming students, but government shouldn't be doing that at all.
Could it be time for the US to look towards European declaration of human rights and define political views, or any world views for that matter, to be equally worth defining as a protected class as for people who visit a holy place regularly. None should be looking at people's social media for undesirable political views, no more than they should dig into peoples life to determine if they are a devout something.
Won't ever happen.
Americans believe we're exceptional. The mere idea of copying Europe is dead in the water before you can explain why it's a good idea.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after we've tried everything else.
Americans believe we're exceptional. The mere idea of copying Europe is dead in the water before you can explain why it's a good idea.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after we've tried everything else.
Americans believe we're exceptional.
This attitude and culture will probably be the downfall of the USA.
Trump personifies this view and takes it to extremes, he basically talks as if whatever he says is all that matters and nothing else is important.
Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure.
This attitude and culture will probably be the downfall of the USA.
Trump personifies this view and takes it to extremes, he basically talks as if whatever he says is all that matters and nothing else is important.
Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure.
"Hard way", sure; just don't count on the "learning" part.
I'm a British national. When I left the UK in 2018, people were still talking about Dunkirk like it was a British victory rather than a rolling defeat whose only (even then partially) successful component was the final evacuation; about WW2 like it was a simple victory rather than a Pyrrhic victory; and about the Empire like the end of it was the UK's choice.
I'm a British national. When I left the UK in 2018, people were still talking about Dunkirk like it was a British victory rather than a rolling defeat whose only (even then partially) successful component was the final evacuation; about WW2 like it was a simple victory rather than a Pyrrhic victory; and about the Empire like the end of it was the UK's choice.
Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure.
I don't share your positive outlook. There's at least two other likely scenario's:
- a large part of the country might not learn at all
- the only lessons being learned are about how to stay in power
I don't share your positive outlook. There's at least two other likely scenario's:
- a large part of the country might not learn at all
- the only lessons being learned are about how to stay in power
It depends how they define "political views". Ethnic cleansing is a political view, and I think it deserves some scrutiny
US has had periods of wild spread moral panic around satanic worshipping, including murder trials where such ideas became central to the cases.
Scrutinizing belifs generally don't lead to anything but misery for everyone involved. This is very different from scrutinize crime that has happened.
The only grey area is the role of secret police. Some people, possible a majority, do want the government to scrutinize belifs and political views in order to determen risk. I am less sure, but I also know that human rights and protected classes has less protection against risk assessments conducted by the secret police.
Scrutinizing belifs generally don't lead to anything but misery for everyone involved. This is very different from scrutinize crime that has happened.
The only grey area is the role of secret police. Some people, possible a majority, do want the government to scrutinize belifs and political views in order to determen risk. I am less sure, but I also know that human rights and protected classes has less protection against risk assessments conducted by the secret police.
In the US, we love ethnic cleansing now. It's the actual policy of our current president.
There will be naysayers but eventually the US passed HIPAA and caught up to Europe on that topic.
Maybe a nitpick, but there is no European Declaration of Human Rights. To unweave the web of confusingly similarly named documents:
1) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [0] which was written by the United Nations (with Eleanor Roosevelt as the committee chair). As a Declaration, the document itself has no legal weight, and the US has only ratified three out of nine core treaties that are based on it. One of them is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1], which does seem applicable here. Before rejoicing however, consider that the other two treaties that the US has ratified are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [2] and the United Nations Convention Against Torture [3] -- so don't expect any miracles here.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCPR
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICERD
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCAT
For reference, ACLU fact sheet from 2013 about the US' track record on human rights: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/121013-human... (PDF)
2) The European Convention on Human Rights [4], which is both a document and a court where human rights violations can be tried. Its jurisdiction is all members of the Council of Europe [5], which is broader than just the European Union (even Russia used to be a member, but was kicked out after the invasion of Ukraine). The EU requires all members to ratify the ECHR as one of the conditions of membership.
[4] https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe
For reference, the text itself: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG (PDF)
3) The EU itself has a Charter of Fundamental Rights [6] which covers the same topics. From what I could find, the main reason for the name change is that the EU fundamental rights are broader than the international human rights, so this avoids confusion when discussing either in international contexts.
[6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
For reference, explore the Charter: https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/title/title-i-dignity
1) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [0] which was written by the United Nations (with Eleanor Roosevelt as the committee chair). As a Declaration, the document itself has no legal weight, and the US has only ratified three out of nine core treaties that are based on it. One of them is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1], which does seem applicable here. Before rejoicing however, consider that the other two treaties that the US has ratified are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [2] and the United Nations Convention Against Torture [3] -- so don't expect any miracles here.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCPR
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICERD
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCAT
For reference, ACLU fact sheet from 2013 about the US' track record on human rights: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/121013-human... (PDF)
2) The European Convention on Human Rights [4], which is both a document and a court where human rights violations can be tried. Its jurisdiction is all members of the Council of Europe [5], which is broader than just the European Union (even Russia used to be a member, but was kicked out after the invasion of Ukraine). The EU requires all members to ratify the ECHR as one of the conditions of membership.
[4] https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe
For reference, the text itself: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG (PDF)
3) The EU itself has a Charter of Fundamental Rights [6] which covers the same topics. From what I could find, the main reason for the name change is that the EU fundamental rights are broader than the international human rights, so this avoids confusion when discussing either in international contexts.
[6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
For reference, explore the Charter: https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/title/title-i-dignity
The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable and this is the argument that they're using.
> The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable
Yeah, I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from?
I thought SCOTUS was supposed to have been jammed with conservative "textualist" justices, and the amendment states "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."
Nowhere does this mention citizenship. Nowhere does it say it can regulate speech outside or at our borders.
Now, from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" ...
Yeah, I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from?
I thought SCOTUS was supposed to have been jammed with conservative "textualist" justices, and the amendment states "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."
Nowhere does this mention citizenship. Nowhere does it say it can regulate speech outside or at our borders.
Now, from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" ...
> from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
> I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from?
A couple of places to start are Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
A couple of places to start are Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
But the executive is supposed to implement laws that Congress passed. So isn't the executive bound by the first amendment as well?
Especially because it's not like all US citizens agree with this extreme level of shoring up support for destroying Gaza. Sec. Rubio and this administration are willing to throw away a century of slowly earned international prestige, just to slow down Europe's response to the one-sided war. The only logical interpretation is that they're hoping Israel can rejoin the world after it is over (if they could be enabled until it's finished) with some mixture of regret and denial, and don't care too much about what happens here at home in the process of getting there.
(Just to make sure we're all aware of the facts, here's information from the State Department that the nature of "catch and revoke" social media screening is to target this issue: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-...)
(Just to make sure we're all aware of the facts, here's information from the State Department that the nature of "catch and revoke" social media screening is to target this issue: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-...)
They aren't doing this to protect israel. They are doing this to destroy academia. Antisemitism is rife within people hired to significant positions within the trump administration. This was never about israel. That's just the cover story.
They are doing this to protect Israel, and protecting Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism. Because Zionism and Judaism are pretty much unrelated!
Israel is strategically advantageous for the US and the rest of the West. Having a Western strong arm in the middle east is the goal geopolitically. Nobody actually cares about Jews or really thinks they're entitled to that land. We just really, really want that land because of course we do.
Israel is strategically advantageous for the US and the rest of the West. Having a Western strong arm in the middle east is the goal geopolitically. Nobody actually cares about Jews or really thinks they're entitled to that land. We just really, really want that land because of course we do.
I don't think the rest of the west besides the USA is all that interested in the strategic value of Israel; I'm not even sure the USA is strategically interested… well, not economically and militarily at least, I think the politicians care about the country for the sake of their own re-election.
If the US only cared about power-projection in that area, Cyprus would also be an easy option (like the UK does with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia), as would Turkey (a NATO member), and these days they could probably have an easy time working with Egypt.
Sure, Israel has a lot of stuff going for it (nukes that won't necessarily be blamed on the USA; MOSAD is infamous; etc.), but counting on them alone is an all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy that comes with risks.
If the US only cared about power-projection in that area, Cyprus would also be an easy option (like the UK does with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia), as would Turkey (a NATO member), and these days they could probably have an easy time working with Egypt.
Sure, Israel has a lot of stuff going for it (nukes that won't necessarily be blamed on the USA; MOSAD is infamous; etc.), but counting on them alone is an all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy that comes with risks.
US expends a lot more effort propping Israel up than it gains from Israel's existence. Our politicians often talk about how important it is to have "an ally in the region", but if you look at that proposition closely, it falls apart because the cost of this particular ally is basically making everyone else there into an enemy.
One of the unfortunate lessons of the past year has been that there is no ideological conflict between supporters of "return to home" (I don't recall the precise translation) and antisemites. I myself discovered this fact in the writings of pre-Nazi German nationalists, but did not expect it to become relevant in my lifetime. The track record of extreme support for Israel is as strong in the present administration as the track record of accepting probable or evident you-know-whats, who (and I can dig up evidence if you want to see it, but I don't want to do that - it's in the documents of white nationalists dating to the alt-right era as distinct from older groups) have actually adopted Israel as a model for their own nationalist views in the past decade or two.
Out of curiosity, who in a significant position within the trump administration has antisemitic views, in your opinion?
I mean, the time to deal with that was 4 years ago under Biden.
Least nobody forget the twitter files where it was revealed the Trump administration was ordering twitter to take down tweets.
Least nobody forget the twitter files where it was revealed the Trump administration was ordering twitter to take down tweets.
I'd say it's worse than that. This new policy of vetting will be extremely high cost in terms of time, money, and lost opportunities for students and universities, while also be rather useless in practice. Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? What threats will actually be caught by this approach?
This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater.
But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.
This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater.
But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.
> Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile?
That is the goal of the policy.
> What threats will actually be caught by this approach?
Catching threats is not the goal.
That is the goal of the policy.
> What threats will actually be caught by this approach?
Catching threats is not the goal.
> what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile?
Every social-media background check I've seen searches extant and archived media.
Every social-media background check I've seen searches extant and archived media.
Yeah the government shouldn't care at all what these foreign nationals might be saying on the internet before letting them into our country.
Yes, but unironically.
I guarantee that you cannot imagine the course of American history if every foreign national was vetted for dissident works. Losing WWII would have only been the tip of the iceberg.
I guarantee that you cannot imagine the course of American history if every foreign national was vetted for dissident works. Losing WWII would have only been the tip of the iceberg.
[deleted]
I thought first amendment was only for our citizens
Congress shall pass no law — but executive branch under Trump does whatever it wants regardless of laws anyway…
Congress shall pass no law — but executive branch under Trump does whatever it wants regardless of laws anyway…
The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not.
It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc.
So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?
It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc.
So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?
That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors.
It is none, and that predates Trump.
It is none, and that predates Trump.
I don’t disagree, but you would think the citizens of such a country would want to check that tyrannical power, not expand it
This is incorrect.
There is specific distinction between citizens and persons.
Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
There is specific distinction between citizens and persons.
Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation.
Some Supreme Court decisions—
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
Some Supreme Court decisions—
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.
I think the key part is "spirit" of the 1st amendment.
A better way to put it is that even if the 1st amendment doesn't apply, it's still against the ideal of "free speech"
A better way to put it is that even if the 1st amendment doesn't apply, it's still against the ideal of "free speech"
[deleted]
Not just spirit, they do entirely apply. Some Supreme Court decisions (there are many clarifying the first amendment)—
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
So it doesn't apply to people that are applying for visa status?
Being subject to unreasonable searches likely does, still. Depends on what is “reasonable” or not, but just because they’re applying for a status does not mean they give up their right to unreasonable searches and detainment.
Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
> Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies.
So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups.
I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US
I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies.
So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups.
I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US
The 1st amendment covers "US persons." A US Person is a term of art broader than a citizen. OTOH since this is for a visa review that a non citizen wouldn't need I don't see where it comes into play.
> 1st amendment covers "US person”
Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2].
The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2].
The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states"
Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder
Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder
> If you want to be overly semantic
That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.
That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.
No, the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document.
> the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document
Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.)
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...
Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.)
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...
"US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.
you could challenge it by saying youve touched US dollars, and therefore theres a US nexus where US law, and thus the constitution, applies
It covers US citizens and people physically present in the US.
“Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles.
A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
Yes, but if it's a place where the US has jurisdiction, then obviously the first amendment applies.
The US borders aren't a constitution free zone. It's a region where you can search people, not anything else.
The US borders aren't a constitution free zone. It's a region where you can search people, not anything else.
[deleted]
Citizenship wasn't even a concept in the constitution until the 14th Amendment in 1866! When the constitution and First Amendment was written, it applied to all residents of the US and citizenship was mostly defined at the state level.
Uh...
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...
> No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"it applied to all residents of the US…"
Slaves? Native Americans?
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...
> No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"it applied to all residents of the US…"
Slaves? Native Americans?
It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. The constitution implies a continuance of English Common Law in regards to citizenship:
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a...
In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed.
The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a...
In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed.
The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.
> It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition.
Then we agree; it very much includes the concept of citizenship.
Then we agree; it very much includes the concept of citizenship.
Maybe it includes a reference to citizenship but it does not define it as a constitutional concept. It also certainly doesn't make it a requirement of the constitution, as sitting US politicians or the OP are currently arguing.
If this is what you are defending than we couldn't disagree more.
If this is what you are defending than we couldn't disagree more.
It doesn't define a lot of things; treason's the only crime defined, for example, but we knew a whole bunch of others existed on day one.
It does clearly imply a difference between "natural-born" citizens and naturalized ones, and that citizens and residents/people/persons aren't the exact same thing.
The choice to use "citizen" in some spots and "person" in many others seems very deliberate.
It does clearly imply a difference between "natural-born" citizens and naturalized ones, and that citizens and residents/people/persons aren't the exact same thing.
The choice to use "citizen" in some spots and "person" in many others seems very deliberate.
After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic.
> After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic
I mean, when China bars renowned scholars from entering its borders because of what they might say, we judge it pretty straightforwardly.
I mean, when China bars renowned scholars from entering its borders because of what they might say, we judge it pretty straightforwardly.
> seems unproblematic.
You say that without having seen the screening criteria.
You say that without having seen the screening criteria.
it can be arbitrary, like for any nation screening entrants
No, it’s still problematic because it creates chilling effects and self-censorship, which is deeply wrong if you care about the spirit and not just the letter of the First Amendment.
I mean we should definitely screen for heretical thought in anyone wanting to visit the greatest country in the world.
1st amendment covers us citizens and people in USA. Before a noncitizen enters, there is no 1st amendment protection. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant to this fact.
No. It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship.
That said, the right to free speech does not mean you are free from consequences from that speech. If you're hoping to gain access to a country, it would be wise to refrain from criticizing that country. Yes, views can change and maybe you talked negatively before realizing you wanted to visit the offended country. Not sure what to say to that.
That said, the right to free speech does not mean you are free from consequences from that speech. If you're hoping to gain access to a country, it would be wise to refrain from criticizing that country. Yes, views can change and maybe you talked negatively before realizing you wanted to visit the offended country. Not sure what to say to that.
> It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship
No, it's not. The First Amendment is a legal provision restricting what the U.S. government can do. Free speech, as a principle, is a broader construct. Some people believe it's a natural right [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
No, it's not. The First Amendment is a legal provision restricting what the U.S. government can do. Free speech, as a principle, is a broader construct. Some people believe it's a natural right [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
in this case its to make sure people arent criticising a third party.
say something bad about israel, and you lose entry to the US, if you're poor
say something bad about israel, and you lose entry to the US, if you're poor
I assume that’s why OP said “the spirit of”. The spirit of the first amendment is free speech. Once you start litigating exactly who gets to speak freely and in what scenarios in an attempt to limit it as much as possible then I’d agree it’s very much not in the spirit of the amendment.
it also covers anyone "presumed to be" an us citizen, even if the gov. does not have specific knowledge that they definitively are.
The plain text says "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about citizens or non-citizens.
Jeez, and whom, might I ask, do laws made by american congress - american laws - apply to? Americans and people in america.
I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.
I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
> In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary, throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to be any of the state’s business.
> The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide effort to transform American law and politics through the lens of evangelical Christianity.
Benjamin Franklin would've loved Pornhub.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
> In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary, throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to be any of the state’s business.
> The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide effort to transform American law and politics through the lens of evangelical Christianity.
Benjamin Franklin would've loved Pornhub.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
pfannkuchen(1)
> I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
Is there any example of colonial or early federal period governmental actions demanding that anyone make a record of all of their correspondence available for review to determine whether they had anti-American views? Even at the level of senate confirmations, did the standard of "we should be able to check that you never wrote anything which we view as unacceptable" ever turn up? Bear in mind that for years after the fight for independence, many of them lived in communities where they knew and interacted with former British loyalists, so this wasn't an idle concern.
I think a bunch of them were on record making very broad statements in defense of personal liberties, and a bunch of them had been accused by the crown of being treasonous based on stuff they had written, so one could understand them being _not_ on the same page of creating punishments for categories of speech.
> Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
Is it? My understanding is anti-obscenity laws at the federal level in the US really go back to the Comstock act in the 1870s, i.e. the founders and multiple generations after them didn't attempt to ban porn. I think it's entirely consistent to believe that the founders didn't imagine that a government had any business making such stipulations.
Is there any example of colonial or early federal period governmental actions demanding that anyone make a record of all of their correspondence available for review to determine whether they had anti-American views? Even at the level of senate confirmations, did the standard of "we should be able to check that you never wrote anything which we view as unacceptable" ever turn up? Bear in mind that for years after the fight for independence, many of them lived in communities where they knew and interacted with former British loyalists, so this wasn't an idle concern.
I think a bunch of them were on record making very broad statements in defense of personal liberties, and a bunch of them had been accused by the crown of being treasonous based on stuff they had written, so one could understand them being _not_ on the same page of creating punishments for categories of speech.
> Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
Is it? My understanding is anti-obscenity laws at the federal level in the US really go back to the Comstock act in the 1870s, i.e. the founders and multiple generations after them didn't attempt to ban porn. I think it's entirely consistent to believe that the founders didn't imagine that a government had any business making such stipulations.
>how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders?
By not pretending we can read the minds of the dead, not letting racist rapists dictate our society from beyond the grave and enforcing the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. This idea that the founding fathers are the sole source of truth is not only dangerously destructive, it's explicitly denied by the constitution itself. This doesn't violate the spirit of the first amendment as currently interpreted, it violates the first amendment.
By not pretending we can read the minds of the dead, not letting racist rapists dictate our society from beyond the grave and enforcing the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. This idea that the founding fathers are the sole source of truth is not only dangerously destructive, it's explicitly denied by the constitution itself. This doesn't violate the spirit of the first amendment as currently interpreted, it violates the first amendment.
What kind of country do we want? One that welcomes a broad set of views, and in turn ensures its future by not attaching itself to any single point of view dogmatically, or one where people use references to the founders to justify their insecure political choices?
> the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America
What makes you think that? Slave-owning aside they were a pretty outward-looking, foreign-fashion-following, elitist bunch.
What makes you think that? Slave-owning aside they were a pretty outward-looking, foreign-fashion-following, elitist bunch.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any non-Europeans who would be interested in going to the US for education when European schools were closer and better. I'm having a harder time wondering why Madison et al. would care.
By "foreigner" do you include Native Americans? From what I gather, Harvard, Dartmouth, and other colonial era colleges nominally encouraged educating Native Americans, as part of their Christianization. There wasn't much of it, to be fair, but it was a stated goal. There were also schools like Moor's Indian Charity School.
By "foreigner" do you include the Black population? We know there were schools for black children, like the Williamsburg Bray School. From what little I know of slaveholder Madison, I don't think he was against free blacks getting an education.
Could you point to anything specific from Madison on this topic?
By "foreigner" do you include Native Americans? From what I gather, Harvard, Dartmouth, and other colonial era colleges nominally encouraged educating Native Americans, as part of their Christianization. There wasn't much of it, to be fair, but it was a stated goal. There were also schools like Moor's Indian Charity School.
By "foreigner" do you include the Black population? We know there were schools for black children, like the Williamsburg Bray School. From what little I know of slaveholder Madison, I don't think he was against free blacks getting an education.
Could you point to anything specific from Madison on this topic?
Some of the founding fathers were non-european foreigners. Wasn't Hamilton originally from the Caribbean?
The men who wrote the First Amendment didn't even see it fit to have border control beyond customs & tariffs.
[deleted]
This is most certainly vetting against anti-Israel views. I know first hand that rich donors to the Trump campaigns (Adelsons and others) made Israel their top priority. They are seeking to control the narrative around this war, and are unable to do so with college-aged students that do not consume Facebook or Fox News media. It seems with everything else failing, they are resorting to vetting. Their concern is empathetic students coming into positions of power, which threatens the well-being of their darling (Israel). Among college aged students, Israel is viewed like Iran (and rightfully so, because the videos coming out of Ghaza are incompatible with western morals and values). America naturalized Trevor Noah during a Trump admin, who was critical of America on his show for 5 years. It seems Israel is where they draw the line, mainly because of the power some groups hold over the Trump admin (like every other admin frankly). In our country, you can criticize everything and everyone but free speech does not include a criticism of the darling of most of America's billionaires
> how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders
Jesus christ. Don't you feel at all obligated to provide support for the thing you're "pretty sure" about before asking people to accept it at face value? Based on your surety? It's hard to tell if this is basic rage-baiting with the absurdity of your claim sans support, or if you truly believe that wild claims don't require any, because enough people's reactionary vibes align with yours.
Jesus christ. Don't you feel at all obligated to provide support for the thing you're "pretty sure" about before asking people to accept it at face value? Based on your surety? It's hard to tell if this is basic rage-baiting with the absurdity of your claim sans support, or if you truly believe that wild claims don't require any, because enough people's reactionary vibes align with yours.
Frankly, who cares what the founders as slave owning dead men think?
They were right about the first amendment but were wrong about a bunch of other things.
Don’t forget that the first amendment isn’t the only amendment. America didn’t even achieve equitable civil rights until the last half decade or so. Within living memory women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts without spousal consent.
This idea that we should go back to the original ideas thought up before industrialized society was invented is super weird.
They were right about the first amendment but were wrong about a bunch of other things.
Don’t forget that the first amendment isn’t the only amendment. America didn’t even achieve equitable civil rights until the last half decade or so. Within living memory women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts without spousal consent.
This idea that we should go back to the original ideas thought up before industrialized society was invented is super weird.
What happens in US is heartbreaking. For so many years the US was the place to go if you intend to invent the next stage of humanity and it wasn't like going to a foreign country but instead US was like this magical place where everyone is welcome and everyone can become American if they have what it takes.
When the best and brightest of a county went to America it didn't feel like brain drain because whatever they do in the USA was about all the humanity. It was just this place where they invent the technology and the whole world benefits of it, so our tax money and resources weren't spent just to make US companies richer - that was a side effect. Even the aliens in the movies always arrived in US, always wanted to talk to the US president and whatever US did later was done for the whole humanity and all that felt right.
Why USA decided that they no longer want to be that place? It looks excruciatingly stupid to deny people who already got lots of investment on them to get some more investment on them in US and they cash out.
Is it possible that the decision makers believe that AI replacing human intelligence is just around the corner and they can cut off the actual intelligent people to reduce liability on race/nationality issues from MAGA supporters?
When the best and brightest of a county went to America it didn't feel like brain drain because whatever they do in the USA was about all the humanity. It was just this place where they invent the technology and the whole world benefits of it, so our tax money and resources weren't spent just to make US companies richer - that was a side effect. Even the aliens in the movies always arrived in US, always wanted to talk to the US president and whatever US did later was done for the whole humanity and all that felt right.
Why USA decided that they no longer want to be that place? It looks excruciatingly stupid to deny people who already got lots of investment on them to get some more investment on them in US and they cash out.
Is it possible that the decision makers believe that AI replacing human intelligence is just around the corner and they can cut off the actual intelligent people to reduce liability on race/nationality issues from MAGA supporters?
It was never like that though. You could neve overstay your welcome/visa.
Literally nothing in their comment or the article relate to overstayed Visas.
I know outsiders view the US this way but there are many people (about half the population) for which this is our only place and don't necessarily want it to be strip mined for that.
If you can understand this (and I know understanding politics for a foreign country can be very difficult. I've spent a lot of time learning to do this as a hobby) the behavior of the US electorate will be much more understandable.
If you can understand this (and I know understanding politics for a foreign country can be very difficult. I've spent a lot of time learning to do this as a hobby) the behavior of the US electorate will be much more understandable.
> don't necessarily want it to be strip mined for that.
If you could explain what this means it would be a great help in trying to understand.
If you could explain what this means it would be a great help in trying to understand.
I'm not the person who wrote that, but I think "strip mined" means that "MAGA" views foreigners (legal and illegal) as taking advantage of the US and depleting its resources.
FWIW, I think there's a legitimate complaint that illegal immigration depletes our resources (but there are also positives). I have a friend who teaches at a high-school with a large population of 'undocumented' students and he's constantly railing about how they unfairly use school resources to the detriment of the other students.
I think it's a much less legitimate complaint about legal immigration, visas, etc.
FWIW, I think there's a legitimate complaint that illegal immigration depletes our resources (but there are also positives). I have a friend who teaches at a high-school with a large population of 'undocumented' students and he's constantly railing about how they unfairly use school resources to the detriment of the other students.
I think it's a much less legitimate complaint about legal immigration, visas, etc.
Strip mined for what exactly?
There are two parts to this. People are feeling frustrated and left behind. Its not only the US. Its nearly everywhere. COVID certainly didn't help. That is what is giving rise to right and far right parties getting elected all over the world. This is not as hard to understand.
But many people learning about US politics seem to confuse right wing incendiary rhetoric with what people want. People want solutions to the income divide. The easy solution presented by right wingers is that money, jobs etc is a limited resource and "outsiders are strip mining". Two entirely different things. What people need and how it is being achieved.
The reality is rich people have always disdained the poor - "they don't work hard enough and don't deserve help". While people at least had that empathy for fellow underprivileged. But under constant bombardment about being "strip mined" they have slowly let that go. COVID certainly didn't help. And even then that is not unique to US. Nearly every country populace has something against immigrants. US is not unique in that aspect too.
If America was passing a law to provide livable wages to its workers everyone would champion the cause. But I am sure many loud RWs will oppose that as "welfare society" and "not what people want" etc.
But to many outsiders who grew up in the era of American exceptionalism this is a unique situation. The last place anyone expected this to happen is America and everyone will lament that.
There are two parts to this. People are feeling frustrated and left behind. Its not only the US. Its nearly everywhere. COVID certainly didn't help. That is what is giving rise to right and far right parties getting elected all over the world. This is not as hard to understand.
But many people learning about US politics seem to confuse right wing incendiary rhetoric with what people want. People want solutions to the income divide. The easy solution presented by right wingers is that money, jobs etc is a limited resource and "outsiders are strip mining". Two entirely different things. What people need and how it is being achieved.
The reality is rich people have always disdained the poor - "they don't work hard enough and don't deserve help". While people at least had that empathy for fellow underprivileged. But under constant bombardment about being "strip mined" they have slowly let that go. COVID certainly didn't help. And even then that is not unique to US. Nearly every country populace has something against immigrants. US is not unique in that aspect too.
If America was passing a law to provide livable wages to its workers everyone would champion the cause. But I am sure many loud RWs will oppose that as "welfare society" and "not what people want" etc.
But to many outsiders who grew up in the era of American exceptionalism this is a unique situation. The last place anyone expected this to happen is America and everyone will lament that.
The last place anyone expected this to happen is America
I don't really understand this. In my circles, I have heard people warning about the direction that the US was heading in since the 90s. The US government has been working for We, The Corporations instead of the people for decades (Bayh-Dole, repealing Glass-Steagal*, zero repercussions for the subprime mortgage crisis). The militarization of police forces didn't happen overnight either, and neither did the anti-intellectual bias in US corporate media (for example, I remember when Sarah Palin was hyped up as a viable presidential candidate).
So no, from my point of view none of this is unexpected nor unforeseen. The only thing that could have surprised some people was the timing (directly after Obama), but the direction was communicated loudly.
* sidenote: the Glass-Steagal act was enacted just a few years after the 1929 stock market crash which caused the Great Depression; and within ten years of repealing it, we got hit with the largest financial crisis since 1929. Lessons were unlearned and not learnt again.
I don't really understand this. In my circles, I have heard people warning about the direction that the US was heading in since the 90s. The US government has been working for We, The Corporations instead of the people for decades (Bayh-Dole, repealing Glass-Steagal*, zero repercussions for the subprime mortgage crisis). The militarization of police forces didn't happen overnight either, and neither did the anti-intellectual bias in US corporate media (for example, I remember when Sarah Palin was hyped up as a viable presidential candidate).
So no, from my point of view none of this is unexpected nor unforeseen. The only thing that could have surprised some people was the timing (directly after Obama), but the direction was communicated loudly.
* sidenote: the Glass-Steagal act was enacted just a few years after the 1929 stock market crash which caused the Great Depression; and within ten years of repealing it, we got hit with the largest financial crisis since 1929. Lessons were unlearned and not learnt again.
There are similar problems with this and tourism. Except tourists who don't understand your culture tend to leave relatively quickly and don't get to vote in your elections.
The "fuck you I have mine" mentality isn't a mystery to anyone. We know you're just selfish assholes who view denying others opportunities as a mechanism for maintaining your own feeble positions in society.
I don't know why everyone feels like they have a right to live in the US. I don't have a right to live in India, China, or Mexico. It's actually much harder to immigrate to those places than the US from what I hear.
I know it looks like the whole country is just made up of corporations but there are actual people here who have lived here for hundreds of years. There's a whole country that needs to function and it only tolerates this stuff insofar as it benefits them which is a completely reasonable way for any citizenry to view their economy.
I know it looks like the whole country is just made up of corporations but there are actual people here who have lived here for hundreds of years. There's a whole country that needs to function and it only tolerates this stuff insofar as it benefits them which is a completely reasonable way for any citizenry to view their economy.
Because the current administration are short term, corrupt transactionalists primarily occupied with lining their pockets and trying to make the US racially homogenous/whiter.
How the media would describe this in another country: "This is designed to cripple their universities, seen as a center of resistance to the regime"
It wouldn't be wrong in this case, either.
Starting recipe for a revolution of a more cultural nature, from a half-dozen historical cases:
- Target schools as centers of dissent and either co-opt or failing that, dismantle them.
- Portray 'intellectuals' as enemies of the people or agents of foreign/cosmopolitan influence. Use the state apparatus is to punish, exile, or eliminate intellectuals to make examples of them and enforce ideological conformity.
- Elevate the the "common man" or "true proletariat" as the ideal citizen embodying folk wisdom, in opposition to educated elites.
- Frame any opposition as existential threats to the nation's values or vitality; invoke religious or nationalist themes.
- Target schools as centers of dissent and either co-opt or failing that, dismantle them.
- Portray 'intellectuals' as enemies of the people or agents of foreign/cosmopolitan influence. Use the state apparatus is to punish, exile, or eliminate intellectuals to make examples of them and enforce ideological conformity.
- Elevate the the "common man" or "true proletariat" as the ideal citizen embodying folk wisdom, in opposition to educated elites.
- Frame any opposition as existential threats to the nation's values or vitality; invoke religious or nationalist themes.
> Later in the recording, Yarvin said that after a hypothetical authoritarian president was inaugurated in January, “you can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past since perhaps the start of April”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/21/curtis-yarvi...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/21/curtis-yarvi...
UK universities should be rolling out the red carpet for all the great students who the USA no longer want. Unfortunately our government seems more interested in pandering to the bigots who think "more foreigners == bad". :-(
UK universities did their own student exodus move with brexit, I'm still friends with several professors of Russel group universities and they all say the same thing - after Brexit the number of MSc and PhD level students have collapsed and not recovered anywhere since. UK is in for a very rude awakening in a few years where its position as a superpower in research starts to dwindle. And to add on top of it - the universities are now cramming as many international(non-EU) students as possible, because they pay ridiculous fees that support school coffers - lecturers are more or less directly told they are not allowed to fail those students in any way almost no matter the transgression because they are the main source of income for universities.
Hasn't the UK been jailing people for sending mean tweets? That seems a bit beyond refusing entry.
If you mean this one: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/why-was-lucy-connolly-...
Then no, she was jailed for calling for incitement to commit crimes.
If you mean this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
Then I'd say essentially yes, despite it being a fine and not imprisonment and getting quashed later anyway, because most of us aren't lawyers and won't care about that kind of distinction — and that goes double for students on a visa.
Then no, she was jailed for calling for incitement to commit crimes.
If you mean this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
Then I'd say essentially yes, despite it being a fine and not imprisonment and getting quashed later anyway, because most of us aren't lawyers and won't care about that kind of distinction — and that goes double for students on a visa.
So it happened but only if you don't care about the distinction between fact and fiction.
Closer to the opposite, it happens more when we do care about the distinction.
[Edit: Just realised the "you" in your comment can either be the poster or the police, with very different consequences.]
The rules are something that looks like a credible threat.
Both these, at the time of the conviction, did look credible.
The second was only overturned because enough people argued well enough that it wasn't credible and shouldn't have ever been seen as credible. The rules were then changed to emphasise the arguments people had made so this didn't happen again.
[Edit: Just realised the "you" in your comment can either be the poster or the police, with very different consequences.]
The rules are something that looks like a credible threat.
Both these, at the time of the conviction, did look credible.
The second was only overturned because enough people argued well enough that it wasn't credible and shouldn't have ever been seen as credible. The rules were then changed to emphasise the arguments people had made so this didn't happen again.
[deleted]
The conversation in UK media and the ruling class consensus has shifted so far to the right on immigration that it would be a miracle if UK continues to see similar levels of foreign student enrolment in future.
Weirdly, despite all that, migration to the UK was a record high this time last year, and although it has reduced a bit since then it remains massively higher than before Brexit — see graph half way down the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89pvd58nd3o
The student enrollments had already started going down last year. 2023 was the peak. From the article you linked:
> According to separate Home Office figures, 393,125 student visas were issued to foreign students in the year ending December 2024.
> That is 14% fewer than in the previous 12-month period, but still almost 50% higher (46%) than in 2019.
So a 14% decrease between 2023 and 2024. I am willing to bet this will go down further this year.
The post-brexit surge in international students was driven by UK universities leaning on foreign students to fill their financial hole. The fees for domestic students will start to go up now that foreign student enrollments are declining.
> According to separate Home Office figures, 393,125 student visas were issued to foreign students in the year ending December 2024.
> That is 14% fewer than in the previous 12-month period, but still almost 50% higher (46%) than in 2019.
So a 14% decrease between 2023 and 2024. I am willing to bet this will go down further this year.
The post-brexit surge in international students was driven by UK universities leaning on foreign students to fill their financial hole. The fees for domestic students will start to go up now that foreign student enrollments are declining.
What about Australia! Nope also reducing foreign student numbers.
Maybe China can become the destination for ambitious smart people.
There is a big opportunity to pull in brain power for any country who wants it and can offer the follow on career.
Maybe China can become the destination for ambitious smart people.
There is a big opportunity to pull in brain power for any country who wants it and can offer the follow on career.
> Maybe China can become the destination for ambitious smart people.
Don't underestimate the language barrier. All those stereotypes about Chinese people mixing Rs and Ls? That works both ways, not just tongue twisters like Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den*, but even "Hello": https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=“你好”%20%2F%...
And machine translation is currently so bad, that the last few time I tried giving an example here, people who actually speak Chinese would respond with something along the lines of "I have no idea what you tried to write, that is nonsensical".
* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vExjnn_3ep4&pp=ygUhTGlvbi1FYXR...
Don't underestimate the language barrier. All those stereotypes about Chinese people mixing Rs and Ls? That works both ways, not just tongue twisters like Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den*, but even "Hello": https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=“你好”%20%2F%...
And machine translation is currently so bad, that the last few time I tried giving an example here, people who actually speak Chinese would respond with something along the lines of "I have no idea what you tried to write, that is nonsensical".
* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vExjnn_3ep4&pp=ygUhTGlvbi1FYXR...
> And machine translation is currently so bad, that the last few time I tried giving an example here, people who actually speak Chinese would respond with something along the lines of "I have no idea what you tried to write, that is nonsensical".
Have you tried LLMs for that?
Have you tried LLMs for that?
Yes, and not just in the well-technically sense of Google Translate being a Transformer model.
Unbelievable, this pipeline is probably one of the main drivers of American dominance over the last 40 years or so. These pipelines are directly responsible for more than 50% of US unicorns.
Trump is unlikely to live long enough to see that the effects of that and besides, why should he care about other people's fortunes?
[deleted]
qoez(6)
Wow, what happened to diversity of opinions? Only those who agree with the fascists in charge are agreed to enter?
They already did a few passes on current student immigrants with the first wave of incarceration and deportation for those who were in the vicinity of any protest against Israel's killing of civilians and apartheid like conditions in West Bank and Gaza.
The chilling effect that this is going to have will have blowback consequences for the Social Media industry and the surveillance community that work lockstep to get people to share personal details and opinions in public online environments.
It'll take a while but people will start hiding their political beliefs and actions as a reaction to this and then the culture of oversharing may change.
This will ultimately be detrimental to national security as the US won't be able to so readily determine who is radical and who may potentially become radicalized.
It'll take a while but people will start hiding their political beliefs and actions as a reaction to this and then the culture of oversharing may change.
This will ultimately be detrimental to national security as the US won't be able to so readily determine who is radical and who may potentially become radicalized.
If we're going to have laws like these, then people who publish their content should have all the rights and responsibilities big players do. Everyone's content should be protected by laws, DRM and encryption.
Organizations profiting from theft and exploitation should be prosecuted as the pirates and criminals they are. If they want to profit from content, let them license it and pay with real money instead of likes and upvotes.
People need to stop impoverishing themselves and their communities by giving away all their personal details. They need to stop giving away what is precious to them to the likes of google, meta and X. If that means a decline of media subsidized by advertising and AI, so be it.
So I hope your prediction is correct. I would love to see stupid laws like these lead us to a world of small community networks protected by encryption and rights laws.
Organizations profiting from theft and exploitation should be prosecuted as the pirates and criminals they are. If they want to profit from content, let them license it and pay with real money instead of likes and upvotes.
People need to stop impoverishing themselves and their communities by giving away all their personal details. They need to stop giving away what is precious to them to the likes of google, meta and X. If that means a decline of media subsidized by advertising and AI, so be it.
So I hope your prediction is correct. I would love to see stupid laws like these lead us to a world of small community networks protected by encryption and rights laws.
[deleted]
Bringing this back to startups, which hubs seem likely to benefit most from this policy direction? It seems likely a lot of students will choose (or be forced) to go elsewhere, places like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vancouver could take up some of the tech-trajectory students and end up with stronger startup ecosystems as a result. I imagine we have a lot of non-US founders here, for the benefit of those of us without that experience what's it been like building in your city?
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/se...
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/ar...
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/se...
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/ar...
> Bringing this back to startups, which hubs seem likely to benefit most from this policy direction?
China (Beijing, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Greater Bay Area), India (Bangalore, Hyderabad, NCR, Mumbai), and South Korea (Seoul) - which represent the bulk of international student admissions in the US - especially at Ivy tier and T10 STEM programs, where the majority of grad and professional students tend to have studied in their home country for undergrad.
Those same students who would have done an PhD in CS at Stanford or an MBA at HBS will now do an MSCS or an MBA at their domestic equivalent, or most likely go straight into the workforce or start their own company with the equivalent amount of capital.
> places like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vancouver could take up some of the tech-trajectory students
Canadian, Singaporean, and British universities that aren't Oxbridge haven't done so hot with the top tier cream of the crop for undergrad.
If you are good enough to get into an undergrad program at a Tsinghua, IIT Delhi, or SNU tier program you tend to attend those instead of studying abroad because you can command a European salary with Asian CoL, and can anyhow study at a top tier program for graduate school.
Furthermore, top universities in China, India, and South Korea have been attracting Chinese, Indian, and Korean faculty from abroad with tenure track deals and/or significant subsidizes, seed grants, and labs for several years now.
It's also extremely difficult to immigrate to Singapore or the UK as a student AND THEN gain residency (the US was significantly easier until today, but is now on par with both those countries).
The cream of the crop of Chinese, Indian, and South Korean graduates already largely stopped immigrating to the US by the 2020s due to EU-level domestic salaries, more financing options for creating a company, and onerous visa programs.
That said, Singapore will remain a target destination for incorporation because of it's Bilateral Investment Treaties with China, India, and the US thus making it easier to access global capital, but the bulk of operations will continue to occur in China and India.
China (Beijing, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Greater Bay Area), India (Bangalore, Hyderabad, NCR, Mumbai), and South Korea (Seoul) - which represent the bulk of international student admissions in the US - especially at Ivy tier and T10 STEM programs, where the majority of grad and professional students tend to have studied in their home country for undergrad.
Those same students who would have done an PhD in CS at Stanford or an MBA at HBS will now do an MSCS or an MBA at their domestic equivalent, or most likely go straight into the workforce or start their own company with the equivalent amount of capital.
> places like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vancouver could take up some of the tech-trajectory students
Canadian, Singaporean, and British universities that aren't Oxbridge haven't done so hot with the top tier cream of the crop for undergrad.
If you are good enough to get into an undergrad program at a Tsinghua, IIT Delhi, or SNU tier program you tend to attend those instead of studying abroad because you can command a European salary with Asian CoL, and can anyhow study at a top tier program for graduate school.
Furthermore, top universities in China, India, and South Korea have been attracting Chinese, Indian, and Korean faculty from abroad with tenure track deals and/or significant subsidizes, seed grants, and labs for several years now.
It's also extremely difficult to immigrate to Singapore or the UK as a student AND THEN gain residency (the US was significantly easier until today, but is now on par with both those countries).
The cream of the crop of Chinese, Indian, and South Korean graduates already largely stopped immigrating to the US by the 2020s due to EU-level domestic salaries, more financing options for creating a company, and onerous visa programs.
That said, Singapore will remain a target destination for incorporation because of it's Bilateral Investment Treaties with China, India, and the US thus making it easier to access global capital, but the bulk of operations will continue to occur in China and India.
This is such a bad, unbelievable self own for the United States. Our education system was the envy of the world, it has been an economic engine for our country, creating technical expertise, high tech startups and jobs, and exporting our values across the world.
But because of a perception that Academica is a liberal power center, conservatives are focused on destroying it. And that's what this is, make no mistake; this is a culture war, an anti-intellectualism crusade, and a celebration of ignorance and raw power triumphing over reason.
A dark time for America as the destruction of our education system unfolds, but good people are fighting back.
But because of a perception that Academica is a liberal power center, conservatives are focused on destroying it. And that's what this is, make no mistake; this is a culture war, an anti-intellectualism crusade, and a celebration of ignorance and raw power triumphing over reason.
A dark time for America as the destruction of our education system unfolds, but good people are fighting back.
Lol in what world was the US education system the envy of the world? We’ve been routinely clowned for overspending, poor outcomes, university tuition bloat, and everything else under the sun.
What is the basis for your assertion? Pretty much every list of top universities in the world routinely lists a large number of US universities.
For example, in the Shanghai ranking, 16 of the top 20 universities are in the USA. https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2024
In US News and World reports of top universities, 14 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the USA. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/ra...
In The Times Higher Education ranking, 13 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the USA. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...
To be blunt, your assertion has extremely weak evidence. I urge you to look at facts and evidence and not your feels.
For example, in the Shanghai ranking, 16 of the top 20 universities are in the USA. https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2024
In US News and World reports of top universities, 14 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the USA. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/ra...
In The Times Higher Education ranking, 13 of the top 20 universities in the world are in the USA. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...
To be blunt, your assertion has extremely weak evidence. I urge you to look at facts and evidence and not your feels.
> Lol in what world was the US education system the envy of the world?
This one.
In most rankings of work universities US schools dominate the top of the list. Same when it comes to winning Nobel prizes--8 of the top 10 are in the US (the other 2 are Oxford and Cambridge).
This one.
In most rankings of work universities US schools dominate the top of the list. Same when it comes to winning Nobel prizes--8 of the top 10 are in the US (the other 2 are Oxford and Cambridge).
K-12 and undergraduate are passable. The thing that the US excels at is scale. No other country can match the US academic research environment. Thousands of well funded research institutions. Broad competitive funding opportunities at every school.
It was a golden age of knowledge that is being crushed by MAGA.
It was a golden age of knowledge that is being crushed by MAGA.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're not wrong. These people are repeating the same inane bullshit about healthcare in the US being the best in the world. Which it arguably is if you're fucking loaded and don't have to care about cost. But it's the furthest thing from the truth for the average citizen. The average citizen has the same shit level of education as they have to healthcare. But since the rich can get the best of both, "our nation" has the best of both regardless of how many fall through the cracks and suffer as a result. The poors should have just played the capitalism game better and they would have been fine I guess. That's what freedom actually means after all.
> But it's the furthest thing from the truth for the average citizen.
Usually "the best in the world" is not going to be accessible to average people. Top schools in the USA are open to the best and brightest people from around the world, average people can't compete with that.
Usually "the best in the world" is not going to be accessible to average people. Top schools in the USA are open to the best and brightest people from around the world, average people can't compete with that.
The irony of a MAGA govt which claims to fight for freedom for individuals, trying to filter out potential immigrants if they have expressed opinions contrary to current dogma is particularly palpable.
Banana republic shit. Pure and simple.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of three-letter agencies have intel on potential extremists entering the country legally. Intel agencies in allied countries do share this information.
This is nothing more than a move to stop the "politically undesirable" from entering the country. I guess it's going to work like this:
- Crawl all social media activity (and probably mails, text messages, etc. in the future)
- Run a semantic analysis, if the person scores high on subjects which MAGA opposes, refuse entry.
Stopping "activist students" is to kick open that door.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of three-letter agencies have intel on potential extremists entering the country legally. Intel agencies in allied countries do share this information.
This is nothing more than a move to stop the "politically undesirable" from entering the country. I guess it's going to work like this:
- Crawl all social media activity (and probably mails, text messages, etc. in the future)
- Run a semantic analysis, if the person scores high on subjects which MAGA opposes, refuse entry.
Stopping "activist students" is to kick open that door.
[deleted]
I do wonder what country will step up to be the new superpower in research since the US is dead-set on torpedoing what made the country great to begin with. It won't be the UK and I don't think it will be Canada.
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-f-chapter-...
Form DS-160, the Nonimmigrant Visa Application used by people applying to enter the U.S. on a temporary (non-immigrant) basis—like tourists, students, or business travelers asks the following question
"Are you or have you ever been a member of a Communist or other totalitarian party?"
These sorts of questions have been upheld as constitutional in the past by the United States Supreme Court
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952): The Court upheld the government's authority to deport legal residents who had been members of the Communist Party, ruling that such deportations did not violate the First or Fifth Amendments.
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972): The Court affirmed the executive branch's broad discretion in denying visas, even when such denials impact First Amendment interests of U.S. citizens.
As a person who decided to join such a party of own volition, answered "yes" to that question in that form, and had to submit an accompanying statement, then proceeded to get US citizenship, I believe this particular bit is a violation of the first amendment, and would love the Supreme Court to struck it down. It violates the letter of the law, and probably the intent too. For all we know had the idea of communism existed in the late 18th century some founding fathers could have subscribed to it.
Supreme Court is a joke. It’s majority staffed with conservative hard liners with life long terms.
So much for separation of powers.
So much for separation of powers.
Looking forward to everyone here having there accounts marked, will be some great deportations and imprisonments coming. dang especially should be getting a few years at Guantanamo for sure.
How does this system work?
Applicants can provide some but not all of the logins. Also, people will then turn to multiple accounts.
Applicants can provide some but not all of the logins. Also, people will then turn to multiple accounts.
> Applicants can provide some but not all of the logins. Also, people will then turn to multiple accounts
If the form asks you for all your social-media handles, and you fail to list one, that's visa fraud.
If the form asks you for all your social-media handles, and you fail to list one, that's visa fraud.
Wonder how does that work... is HN considered a "social media site"? Is reddit?
If at some point I opened a throwaway reddit account to ask about the mole in my anus, does should I report that account? And if I forgot the handle, am i doing fraud omitting it?
If at some point I opened a throwaway reddit account to ask about the mole in my anus, does should I report that account? And if I forgot the handle, am i doing fraud omitting it?
That kind of ambiguity is a feature to them, not a bug. It means that every citizen naturalized under these rules will have to ponder what happens if USCIS starts digging into their application with specific intent to find a reason to consider it fraudulent, and self-censor accordingly.
> Wonder how does that work... is HN considered a "social media site"? Is reddit?
Practically, if you’re posting pro-Hamas content here and the guidelines wind up citing that as something they look for, yes.
> if I forgot the handle, am i doing fraud omitting it?
Fraud typically requires mens rea. Not legal advice. But I don’t think this would count as visa fraud.
Practically, if you’re posting pro-Hamas content here and the guidelines wind up citing that as something they look for, yes.
> if I forgot the handle, am i doing fraud omitting it?
Fraud typically requires mens rea. Not legal advice. But I don’t think this would count as visa fraud.
Good thing those social media sites haven’t embedded themselves in with the administration and aren’t in a position to execute dragnets for secret accounts of visa applicants.
OK, so delete them before you fill out the form.
[deleted]
I think it's not unreasonable to connect vetting student visas with the fight with Harvard, but could it be correlation rather than causation?
Social media vetting has been in place since 2019, surviving multiple administrations. Most people I know do not fill in the boxes on their ESTA form despite technically being perjury from what I understand. Expanding social media vetting to better catch unreported social media accounts to enforce a now longish-standing policy on a smaller group of visa applicants as a start doesn't seem too insane I think? It does if you link it to university suppression like the Harvard case, but I think there might be some straw-reaching in connecting them.
Social media vetting has been in place since 2019, surviving multiple administrations. Most people I know do not fill in the boxes on their ESTA form despite technically being perjury from what I understand. Expanding social media vetting to better catch unreported social media accounts to enforce a now longish-standing policy on a smaller group of visa applicants as a start doesn't seem too insane I think? It does if you link it to university suppression like the Harvard case, but I think there might be some straw-reaching in connecting them.
I cannot fathom why we are vetting people on behalf of Israel. The whole thing started because our gov can no longer control the narrative (making Israel look as the good guy has long since been refuted by every educated individual, in favor of the apartheid regime they have instilled for the last decades, and their recent genocide). So to get this straight, as an American, I should favor vetting on behafl of a foreign nation because rich donors to Trump feel offended by empathy that college students have for children being mutilated and displaced? This is beyond ridiculous. It seems Trump is panicking at his inability to control narrative (as our media has been controlled by pro-Israel billionaires for decades). That is the sole reason for this move and their purchase of TikTok. The ugly truth is China and Europe will retain this talent, and over the span of 20-50 years, their economies will reap benefits from such progress.
> cannot fathom why we are vetting people on behalf of Israel
The animating reason has less to do with Israel and much more with popular distaste with academia's left-leaning tendencies, particularly since the 1990s, combined with the Columbia protests having been incredibly poorly handled by all parties.
The animating reason has less to do with Israel and much more with popular distaste with academia's left-leaning tendencies, particularly since the 1990s, combined with the Columbia protests having been incredibly poorly handled by all parties.
Nope, it has everything to do with Israel. This is not a recent phenomenon either.
Obviously, if left-leaning academia was actually impaired by it's tendencies then right-leaning academia would overtake it. Alas, there is not a better-known school in America than Harvard. The auspices of free market competition have not funded the construction of more conservative schools. The liberal academics have American innovation by the balls, and the market is okay with that.
The good news is, that's a very American process. Your school can be dirty, base, vile, poorly-sorted, distasteful and frugal, but completely validated if your results are superior to your peers. Attempting to force any other outcome is a subversion of the market's will, tooled by the instruments of a planned economy.
> particularly since the 1990s
You know, I recall a certain jingoist American conflict before the 1990s where students protested nationwide. It didn't do much, adults also blamed "both sides" for handling it poorly, but it did ultimately prove the students right when America lost the war. Goes to show how quickly things can change, but I'll leave that as food for thought instead of bringing up Saddam's WMDs.
Obviously, if left-leaning academia was actually impaired by it's tendencies then right-leaning academia would overtake it. Alas, there is not a better-known school in America than Harvard. The auspices of free market competition have not funded the construction of more conservative schools. The liberal academics have American innovation by the balls, and the market is okay with that.
The good news is, that's a very American process. Your school can be dirty, base, vile, poorly-sorted, distasteful and frugal, but completely validated if your results are superior to your peers. Attempting to force any other outcome is a subversion of the market's will, tooled by the instruments of a planned economy.
> particularly since the 1990s
You know, I recall a certain jingoist American conflict before the 1990s where students protested nationwide. It didn't do much, adults also blamed "both sides" for handling it poorly, but it did ultimately prove the students right when America lost the war. Goes to show how quickly things can change, but I'll leave that as food for thought instead of bringing up Saddam's WMDs.
> I recall a certain jingoist American conflict before the 1990s where students protested nationwide
That’s the point. Before the 1990s, student protests tended to find purchase across a broad set of the population. Since then they haven’t.
Are there Israel-specific factors amplifying this response? Of course. Is it enabled by a deeper loss of legitimacy for academia? Absolutely.
That’s the point. Before the 1990s, student protests tended to find purchase across a broad set of the population. Since then they haven’t.
Are there Israel-specific factors amplifying this response? Of course. Is it enabled by a deeper loss of legitimacy for academia? Absolutely.
I think this an excuse that people who hold no power like to believe to convince themselves it is a left/right wing issue and that they have a say in this. Free speech is one issue that every American embraces. The truth is no American has a say in this, because in our free market economy, the ones who hold power would rather see the Capitol burn than oppose Israel. Today, the head of Columbia is someone who gave speeches for AIPAC, sponsored by billionaires. If you sincerely believe this is a left/right wing issue, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. When foreign nations dictate who can come into our country, or what our universities should teach, then America's freedom is under attack. Also, it is explicitly stated as an Israel issue by Marco Rubio, who is a recipient of quite generous sums from 2 pro Israeli lobbies (his top 2 donors for quite a while have been Israel first lobby groups that advocate on behalf of a foreign nation in Florida).
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/marco-rubio/...
[deleted]
It's not enough to say America is no longer great. We must apparently destroy everything and everything that made America great in the first place.
x3n0ph3n3(4)
I hope what this policy amounts to is declining visas to students who support proscribed terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, broadcast blood libels, harass Jewish students on campus, etc. I had a foreign (Pakistani) student tell me, to my face, "I don't like you because you're a Jew." -- in front of a group of mutual friends, who awkwardly laughed it off as if he must have been joking. It's _not_ about mere criticism of Israeli policy or war doctrine, and pretending it is seems to be a new popular misperception on both the far left and the far right.
This was a very real thing when I was an undergrad, and it's surely much worse today. I have family with long histories of attending Ivy League schools, and their seniors are no longer applying to those schools, entirely over antisemitism.
If American universities were 1/3 populated by, say, Russian students with a high propensity for harassing gay students, implying that all gay people are predators, etc., I think the left-leaning commenters here would take a very different perspective.
This was a very real thing when I was an undergrad, and it's surely much worse today. I have family with long histories of attending Ivy League schools, and their seniors are no longer applying to those schools, entirely over antisemitism.
If American universities were 1/3 populated by, say, Russian students with a high propensity for harassing gay students, implying that all gay people are predators, etc., I think the left-leaning commenters here would take a very different perspective.
Weird you mention a brown person, and not the various white nationalist ZOG types who actually go and shoot up synagogues. Also how did you even know he was Pakistani or a student?
I'm talking about my actual experience, and I know he was Pakistani because we had mutual friends. He dated one of them. I know exactly who he was. What a bizarre comment.
I didn't have any similar experience with any white international students.
I didn't have any similar experience with any white international students.
That was what, 10+ years ago? There have been multiple terrorist attacks on synagogues by white men since then, and somehow this is still what you posted about antisemitism.
Do you think we should strip citizenship from and remove white men who are antisemites?
Do you think we should strip citizenship from and remove white men who are antisemites?
> what this policy amounts to is declining visas to students who support proscribed terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, broadcast blood libels, harass Jewish students, on campus, etc.
I dressed up as Ghadaffi in college for a party. Not because I knew almost anything about the man. But because it was edgy and adolescent brains are dumb, particularly when male. Plenty of students who will go on to be good and productive members of society hold stupid views now, possibly most given the state of scial media.
This move, in particular, comes across as in particularly bad faith inasmuch as it's being done by the man who pardoned the January 6th nutters. Actual violent criminals subscribing to terrorist tactics.
I dressed up as Ghadaffi in college for a party. Not because I knew almost anything about the man. But because it was edgy and adolescent brains are dumb, particularly when male. Plenty of students who will go on to be good and productive members of society hold stupid views now, possibly most given the state of scial media.
This move, in particular, comes across as in particularly bad faith inasmuch as it's being done by the man who pardoned the January 6th nutters. Actual violent criminals subscribing to terrorist tactics.
vFunct(2)
A massive problem in the current climate is that the middle-ground has been eroded. There are only two states: pro- or anti-Israel.
For example, if you show solidarity for killed children in Gaza, that also means that you're by proxy pro-Hamas, because Palestine = Hamas. Thus you can not be pro-Israel, and must be anti-Israel.
Likewise we've come to the point where you can say: "I feel for the Israeli people after the October 7 attacks, but I don't like the Israeli government". You automatically get classified as something other than pro-Israel, and, thus anti-Israel.
The middle ground has eroded. And with the Trump administration being what it is, I have zero faith that they'll see it any other way.
For example, if you show solidarity for killed children in Gaza, that also means that you're by proxy pro-Hamas, because Palestine = Hamas. Thus you can not be pro-Israel, and must be anti-Israel.
Likewise we've come to the point where you can say: "I feel for the Israeli people after the October 7 attacks, but I don't like the Israeli government". You automatically get classified as something other than pro-Israel, and, thus anti-Israel.
The middle ground has eroded. And with the Trump administration being what it is, I have zero faith that they'll see it any other way.
> There are only two states: pro- or anti-Israel
Not really. I take the third option: I don't know enough about the situation to reach almost any policy recommendation with high confidence. Not engaging is always an option, particularly when you're dealing solely with rhetoric and not any fundamental action. (Obviously, if you're greenlighting weapons purchases your duty of care is higher.)
Not really. I take the third option: I don't know enough about the situation to reach almost any policy recommendation with high confidence. Not engaging is always an option, particularly when you're dealing solely with rhetoric and not any fundamental action. (Obviously, if you're greenlighting weapons purchases your duty of care is higher.)
You don't need to recommend any policy. Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category.
> Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category
Sure. But declining to use the term "genocide" similarly illicits a negative response from a lot of the pro Palestinian side.
Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to. (My pet war was Ukraine. I, similarly, took a dim view of anyone who described Russia's invasion as a defensive war. And I'd similarly argue with folks who thought what happens in Ukraine has nothing to do with America's security, though I hope I was more respectful than the status quo with Gaza.)
Sure. But declining to use the term "genocide" similarly illicits a negative response from a lot of the pro Palestinian side.
Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to. (My pet war was Ukraine. I, similarly, took a dim view of anyone who described Russia's invasion as a defensive war. And I'd similarly argue with folks who thought what happens in Ukraine has nothing to do with America's security, though I hope I was more respectful than the status quo with Gaza.)
> Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to
These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign. Anything other than explicit endorsement is seen as adversarial.
These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign. Anything other than explicit endorsement is seen as adversarial.
> These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign
We don't know that yet, the guidance hasn't been issued. (And we haven't seen how it's being interpreted by consular staff.)
We don't know that yet, the guidance hasn't been issued. (And we haven't seen how it's being interpreted by consular staff.)
Assuming anything but the obvious is carrying water for fascists and which is how we've gotten into this situation. Is there any reason to assume that aren't going to do the exactly that?
> Is there any reason to assume that aren't going to do the exactly that?
Yes. They're publish something and then a picosecond later a district court will issue a nationwide injunction.
Yes. They're publish something and then a picosecond later a district court will issue a nationwide injunction.
Trump's admin is ignoring court orders and are about to pass a bill that will make it illegal to hold them in contempt of court. I don't see why an injunction will matter.