Comment by anigbrowl
2 days ago
The 'arbitrary and capricious' part (a legal term of art) is in saying things like attending a protest constitute grounds for deportation absent any published rules or guidance to this effect. While statute law gives wide discretion to the Secretary of State and Attorney-General in immigration matters, there's still an obligation for transparency and process, which is why there's a whole infrastructure set up for contestation, appeals and so on. You cannot just start issuing orders of removal based on, say, whether people like waffles.
As a side note, Israel isn't a US state the last time I looked. I doubt that a blanket ban on political expression could survive a first amendment challenge.
> is in saying things like attending a protest constitute grounds for deportation absent any published rules or guidance to this effect.
The law is clear that if you support a terrorist group, your visa application can be denied or your current visa revoked.
If we take Hamas for example, they are designated a terrorist group by: European Union, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom, United States, Organization of American States, Switzerland[1]
If you are in the US on a non-immigrant visa (you are a guest) and you go to a rally in support of Hamas, I struggle to understand why it would be controversial that the US can revoke your visa ("your permission to be in the US").
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g...
> if you support a terrorist group
What does "support" mean in this context?
Commonly, when we talk about "support" for an organization (or a cause) it can mean any of the following:
1) financial (e.g. donations, membership fees, investments)
2) human resources (e.g. volunteers, staffing, training)
3) material & in-kind (e.g. equipment, office space, supplies)
4) knowledge & expertise (e.g advisory, R&D, workshops, training)
5) networking & partnerships (e.g. collaboration, referrals, advocacy alliances)
6) policy & institutional (applies to governments, not individuals, so not relevant "in this context")
7) community & social (e.g. public awareness, volunteer mobilization, cultural legitimacy)
4 replies →
The Taliban sucks shit. I also thought that the war in Afghanistan was a monstrous campaign of death and I publicly said this throughout the war. Should I be punished by the state for "supporting a terrorist group?"
I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group."
> I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group."
I don't think we disagree on this.
In practice, protests are a mix of people but onlookers take a binary stance. It is not going to be difficult to see at protest a poster or cameras capture someone shouting something like "globalize the infitada! or or death to America".
Complicating matters further, protest organizers and the protesters themselves have more of a fluid behavior and motivations - it is not a club where membership is controlled and patrolled, a protest's mission is usually a little vague and fluid, etc.
And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together.
This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's.
It is deeply unfortunate.
6 replies →
An actual rally for Hamas? Or rather deliberate conflation of supporting Palestinians and their right to resist occupiers and genocide in their home country? [0].
Stop bullshitting people here.
0. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/deporting-in...
How is protesting against the genocide suddenly becomes “supporting a terrorist group”?
Only material support for terror group (fundraising and sending $$$ to people in the OFAC list)
See my reply to sibling about what people generally mean with the word "support".
[flagged]
> goalposts
I'm sorry you feel that way, but perhaps what I can say is that I'm trying to be hyper-precise about the boundaries (as I see them at least), rather than move them.
I think it is fine to be outraged about:
a) systematic racist (read: selective) application of the law
b) no due process
c) egregious mistakes
d) commanding the military to stampede cities (ok, in reality, it is more show than scary, but the precedent is unacceptable)
What I don't think is valid is arguing that the government should not apply the law as it stands, which empowers the government to revoke or deny visas (or residency application or naturalization application) for reasons enumerated by the State Department: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-...
1 reply →