Trump’s DHS Subpoenas Harvard Over Alleged ‘Criminality, Misconduct of Foreign Students’
“Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way. Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus.”
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News that the department subpoenaed Harvard University over alleged behavior by foreign students on its campus.
DHS received information about alleged “criminality and misconduct” by these students.
The agency criticized the Ivy League school’s “refusal to cooperate” with past information requests regarding Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which provides visas for non-citizens to study in the U.S.
“We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way. Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus.”
“If Harvard won’t defend the interests of its students, then we will.”
DHS revoked Harvard’s SEVP certification due to links with the Chinese Communist Party.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Secretary Kristi Noem wrote at the time. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
The administration also found that Harvard violated the civil rights of its Jewish and Israeli students.
Jewish and Israeli students lived in fear when antisemites and pro-Hamas students/activists took over the campus. Many had to conceal their identity. Some were attacked and harassed.
You have free speech. You have a right to free assembly. You do not have a right to advocate for violence, attack/harass people, and call for the liquidation of people.
Harvard ignored all of that.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The left continues to foster violence when the can’t get their way, or their avenue to power is threatened.
Suit their red liberal arses back to Community College status.
Hey! Don’t be so stingy with credit! The left uses violence as a matter of routine. They don’t need a special reason like not getting their way or something.
Still nothing on LI about the Trump/Bondi/Patel/Bongino cover-up of Epstein’s client files? Looks like LI intends to follow Trump’s plan of trying to ignore that scandal, and hoping it will go away.
No sense in wetting yourself over something that will never be seen if it even exists.
Like just about everyone else here at LI, you appear to be fine with Trump allowing a vast, international network of powerful, wealthy pedophiles to continue to victimize underage girls.
Not if the document doesn’t exist.
LI’s silence on this scandal is so shameful that even CNN is looking good by comparison: https://youtu.be/TP0N3PfaXzs?si=qVBfPz0rq3ZTLbN7
Stay on topic Sparky.
What part of “off-topic” are you not getting, dummy?
There’s no evidence of a cover-up. The chatter was about a supposed client list, but at no point did anyone ever offer any solid reason to believe that it existed. It was pure speculation. Bongino and Patel checked and now inform us that it doesn’t exist and therefore can’t be covered up. Do you want them to fabricate one, just to satisfy the conspiracy theorists?!
the universities allowed /incited disturbance of the peace and the harassment of students foisted an atmosphere of racism against jews and sexism against white males…at the least
further investigations would probably uncover massive frauds/misuse of tax money
not to mention social promotions of students based on race
So what else is new? Antisemitism at Harvard goes way back to when FDR was on the board. From the Brandeis Center:
“In 1923, as a member of Harvard’s Board of Overseers, Roosevelt became concerned that, as he put it, “a third of the entering class at Harvard were Jews.” He helped institute a quota to limit the number of Jews admitted to 15% of each class.”
FDR was our most antisemitic president, yet he got 90% of the Jewish vote in the 1940, and 1944 presidential elections. The current Harvard quota for Jews is something like 2.5%, way worse than the 15% in in 1923. Moreover, Jews at Harvard did not have to fear for their physical safety as they do today. I’d like to know how many Jews today are applying for admission to Harvard. I suspect a lot. Despite the bad publicity, students and their parents can’t resist the lure of the Harvard brand, which is no indiction of competence whatsoever. After all Harvard has a remedial algebra program for undergraduates. That tells you everything.
the j ews by and large are beholden to their slave masters
jewruselum syndrome
You do have the right to advocate violence. The courts have said so over and over; how do so many people still not understand this?
..otherwise the dems wouldnt have anything to advocate
Yet you wet your panties when someone calls you a Democrat. But advocating for killing people? Meh!
Calling me a Democrat is just a lie. And it’s defamation, which is a recognized exception to the freedom of speech.
Advocacy is the very core of the freedom of speech, and is always and absolutely protected.
And you do have the right to call for the liquidation of people, which is of course the same thing as advocating violence.
But people expressing an opinion that you are a Democrat is considered libel to you.
But violence? Meh!
Advocacy of violence is not libel.
You have the 1A right to say anything and the gov’t is prohibited from censoring the statement. Whether there are consequences afterwards are not so cut and dried as you imply. For example the guy next to you may take offense and give you a curb stomping. Your employer might fire you. Your Family might disown you. Your religious group may renounce. Society at large may shun you. Depending on the statement the govt may choose to prosecute based on multiple elements and context which may apply to the particular statement and its timing.
All of those things may happen, except prosecution. The reason is because none of those other actors are the government, so the constitution doesn’t bind them. “Congrefs shall make no law. I am not Congrefs”.
SCOTUS has always allowed time, place and manner restrictions and allows govt prosecution against a ‘true threat’. The 1A isn’t an impenetrable shield that prohibits govt prosecution against a speaker. Usually that’s a matter of the manner of the speech. Using a sound amplification device as an example. However, in some circumstances the content of the speech can subject one to prosecution. A ‘true threat’ is one, disclosure of classified info to someone not ‘read in’ to it is another.
Try it for yourself if you’re so confident. Go send the Secret Service your plan to act on your desire to harm one of their protectees constituting a ‘true threat’ and see if you don’t get prosecuted for the content of your speech.
In fact you don’t even have to b/c we know the govt can. Mr Carl Montague was arraigned yesterday in Federal.Court for making threats against DJT, Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller. He ain’t the first by a long way.
Come election time, Harvard’s Jewish community will still vote for Democrats. It’s maddening.