I ask myself how i would feel if I went to another country, attended a public university, and protested. My answer would be, "If I was peacefully demonstrating to support my country or people, I wouldn't deserve to be deported nor disciplined. If I demonstrated prejudice-based hatred (though not violent) I think I'd deserve to be disciplined or expelled from the school, but probably not deported. If I was violent, if I damaged, stole, or destroyed property, or if I infringed on the rights of others, I'd deserve to be deported.' I'm not sure how my view compares to the interpretation of the EO.
If I say so? No thats what Trump says in his executive order under section B. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...rnational-security-and-public-safety-threats/
Immigrants who are attending college from out of country pay almost 3x the tuition costs than in state residents. They help subsidize the college. If you commit a crime and are convicted of the crime then I agree you should be deported. Thats not whats happening here. The government is stating whoever goes against "american culture or values" will be eligible for deportation. Thats insane and too vague. Is attending a DSA or socialist rally make you eligible for deportation? Who defines whats "anti american?"
Yeah - I think i agree that i's a bit too vague there. I understand the intent of the EO and I think i mostly agree with it, but not 100%. If a foreign student peacefully and lawfully demonstrates in support of Palestine, but doesn't speak against Jews (a very fine line there) I don't think they should receive discipline.
The intent for people like Steven Miller is to win a "culture war" that results in a white homogenous culture. Is that what you believe is the intent also that you agree with?
This is the exact text of the EO (d) Recommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people, including, but not limited to, our Citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, who preach or call for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands, or who provide aid, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists; Like im sorry but what culture? Its so vague that it allows officials to abuse the EO by punishing anyone who they dont seem worthy of living here.
Since this administration officially only recognizes 2 genders, does that mean that any visa holder who is Trans can be legally deported?
I dunno... anything that sounds prejudiced oughta get you expelled. If you substitute the word "blacks" for the word "Jews", say it out loud and it sounds prejudiced, you oughta get expelled.
We can look forward to making kids work in fields and fast food joints to pay for their school lunches.
one of the first summaries that has come out https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts...trump-issues-executive-order-on-antisemitism/ President Trump Issues Executive Order on Antisemitism January 30, 2025 Order Prioritizes Further Investigations, Potential Intervention in Private Litigation, and Calls into Question Biden Administration’s Resolution of Civil Rights Complaints Alleging Antisemitism On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (the Antisemitism EO) entitled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” This new executive order builds on an order that the President signed during his first term—Executive Order 13899 (EO 13899)—that required federal agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and IHRA’s accompanying examples when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). The Antisemitism EO states that it is intended to address the “barrage of discrimination” that Jewish students have faced “in our schools and on our campuses” since October 7, 2023, such as “denial of access to campus common areas and facilities, including libraries and classrooms; and intimidation, harassment, and physical threats and assault.” Further, though President Biden did not rescind EO 13899, the Antisemitism EO criticizes the last Administration for “failing” to effectuate its terms and refers to a congressional report finding that the federal government has “fail[ed] to fight anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students.” In addition to reaffirming EO 13899, the Antisemitism EO directs the following actions to ensure that “all available and appropriate legal tools” are used “to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence”: Within 60 days of the Antisemitism EO (March 31, 2025), executive federal agencies must submit reports to the White House identifying all authorities within their jurisdiction that can be used to combat antisemitism. These reports must list all pending administrative complaints involving institutions of higher education alleging civil rights violations related to antisemitism on campus post-October 7, 2023. The report from the Department of Justice must also inventory and analyze all court cases involving institutions of higher education concerning civil rights violations based on antisemitism, including whether the Attorney General intends to take any action with respect to these matters, such as filing statements of interest or intervention. The Department of Education’s report must include all pending and resolved Title VI complaints and administrative actions concerning antisemitism in schools, including K-12 education, post-October 7, 2023. The Department of Justice is encouraged to combat antisemitism by employing all appropriate civil rights authorities, such as 18 U.S.C. § 241—a statute that prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threat, or intimidate . . . the free exercise or enjoyment of any” constitutional right. The State Department, Department of Education, and Department of Homeland Security must develop recommendations to: (i) “familiariz[e] institutions of higher education with [certain] grounds for inadmissibility [under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)] so that such institutions may monitor and report conduct relevant to these grounds; and (ii) ensure that such reports lead to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens. Notably, pursuant to the referenced provision of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)), foreign nationals are ineligible for a visa or admission to the United States based on a wide range of grounds, including “endors[ing]” terrorist activity. The Fact Sheet that the White House released in tandem with the Antisemitism EO suggests that the Administration may attempt to rely on this provision of the INA as a basis to revoke the visas of students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests, whom the Fact Sheet refers to as “Hamas sympathizers.” While institutions of higher education are currently required to provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services certain information that is relevant to student visa determinations, any effort to impose an obligation to investigate students and report on potential grounds of inadmissibility would break new ground and raise legal questions. This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. K. Lee Blalack II, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Tennessee; Apalla U. Chopra, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Matthew R. Cowan, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Mia N. Gonzalez, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Adam Karr, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California and Utah; Anton Metlitsky, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and New York; Pamela A. Miller, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Steven J. Olson, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Amanda M. Santella, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Maryland; Jennifer B. Sokoler, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Natasha W. Teleanu, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Meaghan VerGow, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and New York; Kelly Wood, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; David Cohen, an O’Melveny counsel licensed to practice law in New York; John J. Lapin, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, New York, and Colorado; and Theodora Misthos, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in New York, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted. © 2025 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.
the White House "fact sheet" came out about five hours ago: FACT SHEET: PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TAKES FORCEFUL AND UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-she...-unprecedented-steps-to-combat-anti-semitism/
good commentary from a Jewish perspective. I'd emphasize the point made below: Darryl Li, a progressive law professor at the University of Chicago, said it was too early to tell whether such a tactic could be used successfully against pro-Palestinian demonstrators engaged in legal activities. “The federal criminal code is incredibly elastic so is it possible that an ambitious U.S. attorney somewhere tries to do something” he said. “It’s planting an idea.” https://forward.com/news/692986/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-students-campus-protests/ What Trump’s antisemitism executive order actually means for college students and schools The new order is less strident than the rhetoric that surrounded its release, but lays groundwork for more significant action By Arno Rosenfeld January 30, 2025 The executive order on antisemitism signed by President Donald Trump Wednesday was far less sweeping than the rhetoric that preceded and surrounded it. But the order’s primary directive appeared to lay the groundwork for more dramatic action in the coming months, heartening those who believe such action is overdue while prompting fear for international students. The order requires every federal agency to provide the White House — within the next two months — with a description of any legal tools they can use to combat antisemitism and a list of open legal complaints related to campus antisemitism. The order is “creating a process,” said Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, which advocates for pro-Israel college students. “Let’s learn the lay of the land, let’s see what all of our options are and then let’s make a very thoughtful, determined decision on how to move forward — that’s responsible.” The Departments of State, Education and Homeland Security were also ordered to include “recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education” with an existing federal law that bars non-citizens who support terrorist organizations from the United States so that “such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff.” Alex Morey, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Express, said that although the order did not actually direct schools themselves to begin this monitoring she was worried that some may seek to do so anyway.. “Schools are often in risk Whack-a-Mole,” Morey said. “Right now the threat to federal funding — or some federal investigation — is much more pronounced. Nobody is suing them on First Amendment grounds yet.” Both the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee, which praised the order, also said in statements that the administration must follow due process and respect free speech rights. Morey said that her organization was already fielding frantic queries from international students at American universities who are worried about being caught in a legal dragnet. “These are not students that got arrested at a protest or vandalized a building, these are students who just went out and protested,” she said. “What we don’t want to see is schools saying, ‘Hey, Students for Justice in Palestine, I’m going to need a list of everyone in that club and we’re going to comb it for foreign students.’” Examining legal cases — and foreign students Among the order’s most specific provisions is a call for the attorney general to examine all open court cases related to antisemitism and determine whether the United States should intervene as a party in any of them. Lewin said this sent a powerful signal to the Justice Department that combating antisemitism was a top priority for the administration, and could also help elevate the status of some of the civil rights cases where Jewish students are suing universities for antisemitism. “It just brings it up to a whole different level,” she said. The order also “encouraged” federal prosecutors to consider using the conspiracy against rights law, which has historically been used to prosecute groups like the Klu Klux Klan, to go after antisemitism seemingly related exclusively to Israel. That recommendation mirrored one made in Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation’s roadmap for Trump to fight antisemitism, that the government use the RICO statutes originally aimed at the mafia to bring down a domestic “Hamas Support Network.” Darryl Li, a progressive law professor at the University of Chicago, said it was too early to tell whether such a tactic could be used successfully against pro-Palestinian demonstrators engaged in legal activities. “The federal criminal code is incredibly elastic so is it possible that an ambitious U.S. attorney somewhere tries to do something” he said. “It’s planting an idea.” The order also hones in on a provision in federal immigration law that bars non-citizens who support terrorist organizations from the country. The notion that the raucous demonstrations against Israel that swept college campuses last year were driven by foreign influence has been relatively widespread — with some Israel supporters suggesting that Iran or Qatar may have played a role — though virtually no evidence has been provided to support that theory. But some conservative activists have been pushing the administration to focus specifically on deporting foreign students and university staff. Betar USA, a far-right Zionist advocacy group, has been sending lists of foreign participants in campus protests to the Trump administration. Lewin argued that there was a strong need for university leaders to be taught how to identify illegal support for terrorist organizations among students on their campuses: “Look at the people who are creating the disruption and the destruction on your campus, who are harming your ability to carry out your mission and if you see things that appear to possibly connect them to terror organizations let us know.” Arno Rosenfeld is an investigative reporter at the Forward covering issues including antisemitism, philanthropy and sexual misconduct. You can reach him by email or message him securely on Signal using a non-work device at 202-677-5462.
Protesters vandalize University buildings on anniversary of Hind Rajab killing Protesters “cemented” toilets in the School of International and Public Affairs and spray-painted Kravis Hall. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/n...ildings-on-anniversary-of-hind-rajab-killing/ excerpt: Protesters “cemented” the sewage system at the International Affairs Building and sprayed Henry R. Kravis Hall at the Business School with red paint, according to a video posted jointly on Instagram by New York City Resists with Gaza and Columbia University Apartheid Divest. The women’s restrooms on the fourth, sixth, 14th, and 15th floors of the IAB were “vandalized with a cement-like substance causing the toilets to clog,” Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo wrote in a Wednesday night email to the School of International and Public Affairs community. The walls of the 15th floor restroom were also spray-painted, according to the email. The University defined the spray-painting as an “act of vandalism” in a Wednesday Office of Public Affairs statement. A later statement from the office described the spray-painting as “graffiti that included disturbing, personal attacks.” The Instagram post caption reads that the video was an “anonymous submission.” It reads that the organizers “attacked two targets”—Kravis Hall and IAB—on Wednesday, one year since the death of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by the Israeli military. On April 30, 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters occupied Hamilton Hall and unfurled a banner which reads “Hind’s Hall,” announcing that they had renamed the building in her honor. “One year ago, the world failed Hind,” the post reads. “But today and everyday we owe Hind, all our martyrs, and ourselves, action.” *** The University wrote in the Wednesday afternoon statement that it is currently working alongside law enforcement to investigate the vandalism and “will take swift action.” Columbia also launched an investigation to identify the “individual perpetrators” of the vandalism at SIPA and address their actions, according to a second statement published Wednesday evening. “Acts of vandalism of University buildings and property and attempts to harass and intimidate members of our community are unacceptable and abhorrent and will not be tolerated at Columbia,” the evening statement read. “Our buildings and our classrooms are spaces for teaching and learning and we cannot permit them to be disrupted and defaced.” more at the link This might be a case where if foreign students can be identified as participating in the damage, they might be subject to suspension and subsequent deportation.
Why should this policy of deporting foreign students who commit vandalism or break campus rules be connected to antisemitism? Does it mean that if an international student vandalizes a building for a cause that has nothing to do with Jews or the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it's not as big a deal?
if a foreign national with an F-1 visa commits a violent crime (rape, murder) and is suspended/expelled and then convicted, that student loses their "studenthood," and they return to their country of origin. That doesn't have anything to do "with Jews or the Israeli-Palestine conflict." They could be from any other country on the planet. Where it is less serious: if a foreign student gets convicted on lesser charges (misdemeanor-level) and is not suspended, chances are very good they stay in school. They may receive a temporary, one-semester suspension, for example--as opposed to full expulsion. Again, having nothing to do with where they come from. What these EOs are suggesting is that the federal government may not wait for university and/or state/local disciplinary proceedings to be fully carried out. Again, as I said earlier in the thread, university administrators are scrambling right now, pretty much around the clock, to figure out what all this means and how universities should proceed. But the way I'm seeing people interpret the EO, it may not be necessary for the federal government to wait for the full legal due process to play out: the federal government may just use these kinds of illegal protest activities to cancel student visas--whether the students have been found guilty or not.
I will add that in practice it is pretty difficult to identify many of these student protesters. There is widespread mask wearing, and also the people who know who the students are (including some faculty and administrators) choose not to identify them for discipline and/or prosecution. In many cases faculty in the departments these students are enrolled in are sympathetic to the students and refuse to enforce campus codes of conduct.
But only if the illegal protest activities relate somehow to Jews or Israeli? If an international student engages in similar protest activity for some other cause, say climate change, that will not be held under the same scrutiny? It seems to me if illegal protest activities should be grounds for canceling student visas, then that shouldn't be contingent on the message or cause behind the protest (unless the message/cause is itself a criminal action like a direct call for violence).
the EO is specifically focused on combatting antisemitism. That's its focus. again the focus is on antisemitism
The executive order states that any protest or behavior, "against American culture" is worthy of deportations. You do not have to commit a crime or even protest against Israel. If you say anti Israel stuff on social media you can be deported. You don't even have to participate in a protest to have your visa canceled
