[jasonjayr]

Sure it's discretionary.

But to (a) Revoke it with no warning (b) Instantly making your presense illegal, and you a criminal, and due to your new criminal status(c) immediatly abducting you by masked, unidentified "officers" in an official capacity and sending you on a plane anywhere but here, seems to, I don't know? "stir the pot" as you say?

These revocations could be done far more graciously than they are. It certanly reveals how the people in charge feel about their fellow humans. It's being done this way NOT to be efficent. They're doing it to send a message.

"See how quickly we can disappear you for dissent."

[FireBeyond]

Exactly. It's discretionary, but for reasons I won't go into here, I had to have an immigration attorney for my green card adjustment. Her constant refrain was that I was not to worry as it was "discretionary but presumptive" - my previous efforts and process laid it that the onus was on the USG to show that my green card was or might be fraudulent or in bad faith.

Now? The same applies, but the current administration's attitude is "So stop us."

[tgma]

My friend was married to a USC (bona fide legit marriage) and they almost fucked them over during Biden administration casting doubt on their marriage. In San Francisco, not some red state. Many examples of that nature regardless of the administration.

Almost always if your case is legit, you'll be fine in the end and nothing to worry about, just as your lawyer says, but it does not mean there won't be a bumpy ride. I genuinely doubt Trump administration is any worse or better unless you affirmatively have anti-Western ideas or from Travel Ban countries. In fact, the anecdotes I have heard so far on the consular processing of Immigrant Visas is better than Biden era.

[tgma]

I mean, I was discussing the law, now we pivot to emotions? The "masked" guys immediately showed their badges if we are talking about the same incident. When you come to the US on a visa, you should not be under any illusions that is not the case. In fact, a US visa is not even guarantee of entry to the US as you are reminded when you get one.

I am not aware if any other country behaves differently if they want a foreigner gone. It's not a right to be in another sovereign country.

Regardless, this has pretty much nothing to do with the resilience of the system at large.

[kragen]

Here in Argentina, legal immigrants' visas cannot be revoked, and illegal immigrants generally can only be deported if they are accused of a crime. (Being present illegally is not itself a crime.) They have several weeks to challenge the deportation in court.

Nearly all other countries behave differently. The kind of "immigration law enforcement" we're seeing today in the US is far outside the norms of liberal democracy.

Debating morality rather than legality, any policy that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral, and should be stopped. Even if it were the policy of every country in the world, it should still be stopped.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral,

What's harm? Do they have to have harmful intent, or would you object if their presence was unintentionally harmful? Does the harm have to be grievous bodily injury, or is economic harm enough? Why am I allowed to evict trespassers from my home even if they're causing me no physical injury, but the government isn't allowed to evict trespassers to our country unless they can prove some violent felony? It isn't some fundamental human right to live within the borders of the United States.

[MPSFounder]

The issue is many are not trespassers. This is the equivalent of a guest in your house. They have paperwork and are working jobs, are legal residents and PhD students. The guest opposes a political policy you like. Instead of ending it in a reasonable fashion and showing them out sensibly, you call your son, a boxer and drug addict, to show up, handcuff them and take them somewhere. I never elected Rubio to decide on such things, and people that defend such decisions make me very uneasy.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>The issue is many are not trespassers.

No, because trespass refers to a smaller scale and a personal property sort of circumstance. But if we can extend that to the national level, just because they were invited (or in many cases overlooked and ignored) doesn't mean the property owner can't change his mind and uninvite them, or to decide that enough leeway has already been given and that they must be evicted.

>Instead of ending it in a reasonable fashion and showing them out sensibly

They were shown out sensibly. There's no need to give them extra time so they can go making public appeals and trying to weasel their way into staying. In fact, if they can do that long enough, a judge might just decide they're a tenant and allow them to stay indefinitely. No thanks.

>I never elected Rubio to decide on such things,

But you were fine with Democrats when they were elected? Isn't that just you being upset that public opinion swung a different direction and now the majority doesn't agree with your views?

[jltsiren]

In Finland (and I guess in some other European countries) deportation in itself is not a sufficient reason for arrest. Once you have been informed of the decision, you get some time to leave voluntarily, or to challenge the decision in the administrative court system. But you won't be arrested until the decision is final and you have failed to leave voluntarily, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. And those specific reasons are typically ones that would justify arresting a citizen as well.

[tgma]

I believe they are free to challenge the decision in an administrative court in the US (under Attorney General, not an Article III court) but they can be arrested. In any case, most countries would reserve the rights to kick you out. That's the deal you make with the country when you choose to get their visa and go there.

[jltsiren]

I don't think the controversy is about deporting people who are no longer wanted in the country. It's about the use of unnecessary force. The principle of minimum necessary force is pretty integral to Western societies. It includes the idea that the authorities are not allowed to arrest anyone until more reasonable options have been exhausted.

[tgma]

Unless there is an imminent threat or you want to send a message and act as a deterrent.

[jasonjayr]

You started with "Stir the pot in the media", and brought emotions into it.

But the point still stands. Legal does not mean moral. And there is a legal obligation to represent the will of all the people of the country, not just those that elected you.

Clearly, the law needs to spell out exactly what legally needs to be done in the case of an expideient deportation, so it codifies some sense of common morality.

But to your point of resilience: The resilience breaks down when people lose their faith in it. Why trust a system that can act aribtrairily like this? Do we really want our guests to fear that speaking in solidarity with nearly half the country is grounds to be treated like a criminal, and be subject immediate and expedient deportation? That's not the way a "great" country behaves.

[tgma]

The law spells out exactly what can be done. Your issue is you don't like the law and want more leniency for the alien, which is a fine position to argue, but that is not the law that has been on the books for 30+ years.

I don't want to debate my opinion on the merits of the current law; clearly we can agree/disagree on some of the points on how it should be written, but I will respond your questions with a different one: do you really believe that there are absolutely zero foreign actors/implants on student visas? If not, you should at least give some deference to the US government intelligence apparatus to know what they are doing. They have reportedly cancelled 300 visas? If it were 10x more, I would start to worry, but 300 sounds like security apparatus functioning properly.

[cameldrv]

You would normally at least be entitled to due process. My understanding is that Trump is citing a law that allows the President to deport nationals of a country we are at war with without due process, except we aren’t at war with Turkey.

[tgma]

I believe you are mixing up different cases. That is not the statute used at all for the Turkey case. The Alien Enemies Act you are referring to was exclusively used for the designated foreign terrorist organizations (i.e. TdA & MS13; Venezuelans who went to El Salvador prison).

[kragen]

You also aren't at war with TdA or MS-13.

[tgma]

A war is not an essential requirement for invocation of AEA. Read the statute.

(The steel-man for your case would be on TdA being tied to a foreign government, not that it is not a war--an invasion or predatory incursion is enough. We will soon see how SCOTUS rules on that.)