State Dept. Revokes 6,000 Student Visas Over Terrorism Support, Assault
Between 200 and 300 people lost their visas for supporting terrorism.
Fox News learned that the State Department revoked over 6,000 student visas due to supporting terrorism, overstays, assault, burglary, etc.
The roughly 6,000 visas that were pulled were primarily due to visa overstays or encounters with the law, including assault, DUIs, burglary and support for terrorism, the State Department told Fox News Digital.
“Every single student visa revoked under the Trump Administration has happened because the individual has either broken the law or expressed support for terrorism while in the United States,” a senior State Department official said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “About 4,000 visas alone have been revoked because these visitors broke the law while visiting our country, including records of assault and DUIs.”
Those who had their student visas yanked due to assault — roughly 800 students — either faced arrest or charges stemming from assault, according to the State Department official.
Those whose visas were pulled due to support for terrorism — between 200 people to 300 people — engaged in behavior such as raising funds for the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. State Department has designated as a terrorist organization, the official said.
At the beginning of his administration, President Donald Trump ordered the State Department to evaluate the visa process and those who already reside in the country.
The State Department pulled 4,000 student visas during President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, which was in April.
I’ll never forget the lashing State Secretary Marco Rubio gave Rep. Pramila Jayapal on student visas in May.
Rubio has stressed one simple fact since his confirmation: No one’s entitled to a student visa.
It is a privilege.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
with rubios new found presence of rising stature
msm will load up on his “war/struggle” etc with jd vance as the vie for 2028 gop potus slot
just go through the dnc contacts and randomly choose 25% and they can join these comrades
Kick out the 250k chinese and 90k arab students. That will be a good start. Followup by kicking out Paki, and Turk students too.
Don’t leave us hanging — what colleges hardest hit?
Just go to Amsterdam airport
The amount of Muslims is suffocating
why arent these lefty universities called out as greedy
thats what they do to maga
The Universities dont *need* the foreign students
its just more income for the schools…that goes against their whole agenda of destroying the white patriarchal capitalist system ,,
Obligatory:
You got to get those numbers up! Those are rookie numbers!
There are *far* too many foreign nationals studying at American universities. It’s a national security risk and it’s propping up educational institutions that are hostile to the United States.
If I were SOS, I’d aim for 90%.
I was amazed at the number of F-1 Visa Chinese students at my son’s University. Most were Computer Engineers or other STEM courses.
Makes on wonder how much technology went with them when they visited home.
A Maine police officer arrested by immigration authorities has agreed to voluntarily leave the country, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Monday.
ICE arrested Old Orchard Beach Police Department reserve Officer Jon Luke Evans, of Jamaica, on July 25, as part of the agency’s effort to step up immigration enforcement. Officials with the town and police department have said federal authorities previously told them Evans was legally authorized to work in the U.S.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maine-police-officer-arrested-ice-185114180.html
According to ICE, Evans lawfully entered the United States at Miami International Airport in Florida on Sept. 24, 2023. He was scheduled to depart the country a week later but never boarded the flight. ICE said Evans violated the terms of his lawful admission to the United States when he overstayed his visa.
And yet apparently nobody updated the E-Verify immigration status system that he had overstayed his visa and was now illegally residing in the United States. Employers are required to e-verify potential employees to determine their employment status but the data returned isn’t reliable and can’t be trusted. What a complete fustercluck of a mess.
Apparently, “Nobody” was a federal employee who gladly didn’t update the e-Verify system.
employers must be eld responsible when applicable
Hey! Underemployed Democrats and former Obamacare website coders deserve a living wage, too!
Past due. No one granted the privilege of entering the USA on any type of visa should mistake that initial permissive grant as non revocable. These aliens are here with our permission, at our sufferance and can/should be sent home as soon as they violate the conditions of the visa. Supporting terrorist organizations/aims and criminal violations are high on the list of ‘don’t do that’.
The grant is revocable, but not arbitrarily, and not because they exercised a constitutional right. There must be an articulable reason that isn’t that.
Suppose a future government were to decide to revoke all visas issued to black people, for no other reason than their skin color; surely you would agree that it can’t do that. Not just by statute, but constitutionally. And that’s the case even though it’s only statute that prevents a government from refusing visas in the first place on the grounds of race. If a racist government wanted to stop admitting black people it would have to go to Congress to change the law; but if Congress went along there would be no constitutional objection. And yet it could not use that changed law to expel black people who already had their visas and were already here.
The same applies in our case.
Milhouse
Sorry no straw man arguments accepted today. If Joe Blow engages in actions that would have made him inadmissible for entry and thus would have disqualified him from the grant of a visa after he is granted a visa and present in the USA, his visa absolutely can be revoked. To include endorsing or espousing terrorist activity.
Heck we can revoke green cards for actions committed while in the USA as a lawful permanent alien for a considerable length of time, I believe 5 years, though any ongoing conspiracy would keep
the clock rolling.
Let’s simplify it. The People are the owners, the US Govt is the ‘property management firm’ and the Executive is the onsite manager. If the manager wants Joe Blow cited for criminal trespass and escorted off the property he can do so.
Finally I didn’t argue for arbitrary removal but for ‘violations of the conditions of the visa’. Espousing support for terrorism is one of the things prohibited. Which specific Constitutional right is being violated? Not 1A. Heck we order folks not to ‘associate with known criminals’ as a condition of parole and probation. What’s the difference? Easy the subject population group is being granted something we ain’t under an obligation to provide, just as aliens on a visa are granted that visa on provision they comply with the conditions.
Chief, it’s not a straw man. There is no difference between cancelling a visa because someone said the wrong thing and doing so because they are the wrong race. In both cases, as far as the constitution is concerned, we need not issue a visa, but once the person is here it can’t be cancelled for that reason.
The only reason we can’t actually refuse visas on the grounds of race is not because of the constitution but because Congress has banned it, and Congress can always change its mind. Congress hasn’t banned refusing a visa on the grounds of speech, so we can still do that; but once the person is here we can’t cancel it for that reason.
Not espousing terrorism can’t be one of the conditions imposed on a visa, because of, yes, the 1A. Again, you are ignoring the principle that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests.” See a more comprehensive discussion here. None of the exceptions and nuances discussed there appear to apply in the case we’re talking about.
Parole conditions are allowed only if they’re required by the state’s interest in ensuring that the parolee won’t escape, or revert to crime. So a parolee can be required to waive fourth amendment rights, and some freedom of association rights, but not the core freedom to express an opinion that the government disagrees with. The government could not condition a parole on a promise to vote Republican, or to attend Republican rallies, or to express conservative views that the parolee doesn’t actually hold. It couldn’t condition it on expressing support for Israel but not for Hamas.
And the same is true for visas, once the person is protected by the constitution. The reason visas can be denied on the basis of speech that took place outside the USA is only because that speech isn’t protected.
Milhouse
The primary distinction between the two hypothetical basis of revocation is that one revocation, espousing/supporting terrorist activity, stems from actions/behavior while the other revocation, race, is based on an immutable characteristic.
What interest is being infringed? Life? No, Property? No. Liberty? No the grant of the visa contained prohibited actions and violation of them is group for deportation. All a deportation does is send them home.
Visa holders are very analogous to parolees. Both are classes of individuals the US Gov’t isn’t required to let loose into our Nation. We do so voluntarily and both groups have strictures of conduct imposed upon them that average US Citizens don’t face.
The 1A isn’t an impenetrable shield and in any case no one is censored nor given we’re having a discussion about advocacy of terrorism, is the threat of deportation creating a ‘chilling’ of speech. If some whacko Citizen goes online with a video detailing his ideas to kill POTUS and blow up Congress he’s gonna get a visit from LEO to see just what he’s up to and that’s not ‘retaliation’ but is definitely based on his speech.
There’s no constitutional or legal basis for that distinction. Immutability is irrelevant to whether discrimination on its basis is constitutional and/or legal.
The relevant criterion is whether it’s constitutionally protected. Race and religion are, and so is speech. And that’s what advocacy of terrorism is: not “actions/behavior”, but speech.
And in both cases a demand that the person waive their freedom of speech is an unconstitutional condition. Any necessary restriction must be viewpoint-neutral.
Yes, it is an impenetrable shield; “mere advocacy” is at the very core of the amendment and has absolute protection. Punishing it in any way is censorship.
Milhouse,
You are incorrect about revoking a visa. Just last term SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in Bouarfa v Mayorkas that the Sec of Homeland Security, can utilize his statutory authority which gives him power such that he ‘may at any time revoke visa application’ for ‘good and sufficient cause’ and ‘at his discretion’ and the decision is not justiciable.
Sec State and AG hold similar statutory authority to revoke visa and/or green cards purely on their own discretion. At root issuing a visa is a combo of National Security and Foreign Policy. Both are apex powers of the Executive. Neither is normally subject to judicial review. Scream 1A as loud as you wish till the cows come home but at the end of the day any visa or green card CAN be revoked and alien deported based on the statutory discretion of the Executive Branch.
Chief, you keep on ignoring and ignoring the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Why do you do that? Were you unaware of it before this discussion? But you are aware of it now, so why do you ignore it, as if it didn’t exist?
Yes, the Secretary of Homeland Security can revoke a visa petition at his discretion, and likewise State and AG can revoke actual visas and green cards at their discretion — so long as it is not for an unconstitutional reason. If the plaintiff alleges an unconstitutional reason then it is justiciable, because no government benefit may be conditioned on waiving ones constitutional rights, and likewise no government benefit may be denied or revoked because someone exercised his constitutional rights.
That applies even to government grants of money, which is as discretionary as it gets! The government has been funding someone, he says the wrong thing and the government stops paying him — so he goes to court and the court orders the government to keep paying. That’s how it works.
So how do you distinguish this case?
Chief, if you don’t like race, how about religion? When Trump was campaigning in 2016, he expressed the opinion that Moslems ought not to be allowed into the USA. When he took office he looked for legal ways to implement something like that policy, and came under heightened scrutiny from the courts because his illegitimate motive was apparent. The courts went overboard, since what he actually did wasn’t illegal, but there was no question that what he wanted to do was indeed illegal and beyond his powers.
But what made it illegal? Not the constitution. As far as the constitution is concerned Moslems may be denied the privilege of visas to the USA. It’s Congress that has banned this. But suppose Congress were to change the law and authorize the president to deny visas to anyone known to be practicing or preaching Islam. That would be constitutional; but cancelling a visa because the person practiced or preached Islam while in the USA would not be constitutional. And the government could not condition the visa on a waiver of the right to preach and practice Islam. Not even with Congress’s express approval.
Has the Muslim religion apologized for the repeated attempted murdering of Salman Rushdie yet?
(See? I can straw man too.)
Treguard, that’s not a straw man, it’s a red herring. Islam has no reason to apologize for that. Nor can Islam apologize for anything, since it’s not a person. But none of that has any relevance to the topic.
We are talking about the difference between denying visas in the first place, and revoking them after they have been given. If Congress were to change the law, it would be lawful to deny Moslems visas to come to the USA. But nothing Congress can do could make it lawful to cancel a visa because the bearer practiced Islam while in the USA. That is beyond Congress’s powers because it’s unconstitutional.
Milhouse,
Why would you seek to equate Religion with terrorism? Even then though, just b/c X religion claims practices are ‘expression/worship’ doesn’t mean they can practice those aspects. If I claim a new religion which requires I sacrifice a random stranger on each full moon to appease the great spirit the Gov’t ain’t gonna let me do that simply b/c I start yelling about 1A and religious freedom.
There you go again, Chief. I’m not equating religion with terrorism, I’m equating it with advocacy of terrorism, because they are exactly equivalent, as far as the constitution is concerned. They’re both protected.
The government won’t let you do it, because that would violate a generally applicable law. But it has to let you preach the necessity of doing it.
And the law that it violates does have to be generally applicable, not only in theory but also in fact and intent. If the reason the law was made in the first place was in order to crack down on the religion, then it’s invalid. The laws against murder are valid, because they’re not aimed at religion, and they apply to religious murder exactly as they do to all other murders. But a law targeted at human sacrifice as opposed to any other kind of murder would be invalid.
A visa can be revoked at discretion of Executive Branch. The AG, the Sec State and Sec Homeland Security all have statutory authority to do so at their discretion. Just last term SCOTUS reaffirmed this principle 9-0.
There is no ‘home base’ offered by the 1A or any other which confers immunity from having a visa, teen card or even Naturalized Citizenship revoked and the alien deported using these discretionary powers. That’s what makes them discretionary.
And again, Chief, you are ignoring the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which applies even to the most discretionary decision. It cannot be made for unconstitutional reasons.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas is not about a general principle, it’s about a specific statute, 8 USC 1252, that strips the courts’ jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions. But it does not override constitutional challenges.
Indeed, that very statute acknowledges this. At 8 USC 1252(a)(2)(D) we find: “Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”
Your a broken record on this subject and always wrong. Give it up.
No, I am consistently telling the exact truth, and you have never once shown otherwise. You are constantly repeating your rank ignorance, and you will continue to be wrong until you educate yourself.
It is not subject to any dispute that the government may not take any action, no matter how discretionary it may be, if the motive is to punish someone for exercising a constitutional right. There are hundreds of court cases supporting this and none against it.
Yes but here in the case of advocacy or espousing terrorism that behavior itself is not protected for this class of persons; aliens granted a visa. It is prohibited as a condition of the grant and if they violate it they can have their visa revoked. Just as someone granted parole, probation or in some cases pretrial release/bond has conditions attached which if violated can result in revolution of their grant. None of these groups are the same as average Citizens. They are each distinct classes who enjoy conditional entry into our society.
Advocacy is protected for all classes of person, and it’s protected absolutely. It can’t be prohibited as the condition of any grant or benefit. Again, you are completely ignoring the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. The government is prohibited from imposing such conditions.
Those who broke the law should of course have their visas cancelled, but in the case of those who did nothing but express support for terrorism after they got here, it is unconstitutional to cancel their visas, and if they go to court they will win.
Rubio has previously asserted that since he can deny them visas for such speech before they get here, he can also cancel their visas for the same speech after they’re here, but that is not the law. The courts have been very clear that people who are neither US citizens nor US residents are protected by the constitution only while they’re physically in the USA, and that that is the only reason they can be denied visas for their speech. As soon as they set foot here they are protected, and their visas can’t be canceled for exercising a constitutional right.
But then the story weirdly changes:
That is not “expressing support”! Expressing support for Hamas is protected speech, but raising funds for it is a felony, for which they shouldn’t just have their visas canceled, they should be prosecuted!
This is true. But like every government privilege, it cannot be denied or canceled because of an applicant’s exercise of a constitutional right. That is a fundamental principle of constitutional law; even grants of taxpayers’ money, which obviously are not an entitlement, cannot be canceled or denied because the applicant said something the government doesn’t like. If the evidence shows that that was the reason, the courts will order the government to make the payment.
“…it is unconstitutional to cancel their visas, and if they go to court they will win.”
Perhaps so, but they can file their lawsuits while residing in their home countries, and if they win after four or five years winding through the courts, they can come back then.
THIS-
These cases should be slow walked the same as the girls who objected to boys in their locker room…. and graduated while waiting so they could be deemed as having no standing.
I’d also go with the slow walked J6 detainees and maybe go even farther to put these at the back of the line in the asylum courts. Asylum is so important to the D’s that it should absolutely go first.
“…it is unconstitutional to cancel their visas, and if they go to court they will win.”
Except for the most part, US District Courts don’t have jurisdiction over immigration matters. That belongs to Article II Immigration courts.
Not when it comes to a constitutional violation.
Now go after the employment visas.
It’s a start.
Good, very good. Long overdue.
Credit is due to #47 and SoS/National Security Advisor, Rubio.
And, of course, if utterly wretched, dim-witted and useless crone-harlot-dunce, Kamuluh was president, these criminal thugs and genocidal Islamofascists/Muslim supremacists would’ve been allowed to continue to stay in the U.S., unmolested.
Supporting genocidal Islamic “Holy War” and Muslim terrorism should bring profound consequences to the party who engages in this idiocy.