undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmvdoug11mo ago0 comments

The actual statute provides the categories of information schools must provide about their students. It’s not a “whatever we happen to ask for” list. See 8 U.S.C. § 1372. Needless to say, “protest activity” is not included.

0 comments

firesteelrain11mo ago

We do not know yet what Harvard did and did not respond to. All we have is their word. If they didn’t provide what was required after DHS demanded what was legally required to be provided then DHS is on solid legal ground. I can’t really defend not providing something that isn’t called out as part of the law though

dmvdougOP11mo ago

No, we gave the SEVIS revocation letter demanding a handful of categories of information, one of which is “protest activity.” And they are already required under the statute to provide one category of information requested: “any disciplinary action taken by the institution against the alien as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime or, in the case of a participant in a designated exchange visitor program, any change in the alien’s participation as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime.”

My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.

firesteelrain11mo ago

My point is we don’t know if they actually provided all the info that is statutorily required and/or the government is saying within those statutory rules you still didn’t provide it so by law it’s revoked (for now). We only have statements from both sides.

Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA

dmvdougOP11mo ago

Nah, this one is going to federal court for sure. It’ll all come out. But part of the rules are also that schools must provide the relevant information within 30 days of the start of an alien’s academic term. There’s a whole system set up to handle this. The system is not, government, go ask for this set of information whenever you feel like it and if the school doesn’t hop to it immediately, you may suspend. It says that if a school does not provide the information within the relevant period before the term starts, it shall be suspended. There is no discretionary wiggle room for the government to be like, well, I don’t think you’re giving me enough, or you’re not being cooperative enough.

1 more reply

dgfitz11mo ago

Rights don’t exist if you’re not a citizen. Isn’t that the whole crux of the debate? Glossing over that part, and as a former lawyer you should know better, means everything.

dmvdougOP11mo ago

You’re wrong about that. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, unless it targets non-citizens.” The First Amendment is a constraint on what governments may do.

2 more replies

eli_gottlieb11mo ago

And all we have is DHS' word that Harvard didn't provide what was required. This is simply ridiculous and everything needs to be easier for the public to double-check so we can call bullshit in the right direction.

firesteelrain11mo ago

Your bias is showing. Harvard could be wrong too.

This is all being argued in the court of public opinion now

ImPostingOnHN11mo ago

The bayesean priors aren't the same for the two parties: One is a 30-time convicted criminal infamous for lying to get his way (tens of thousands of such lies on the record); The other is not.

If your first instinct isn't that the infamous known liar isn't the one lying here, then the bias here is yours.

malcolmgreaves11mo ago

Why would you ever believe the orange criminal and his gang members?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

firesteelrain11mo ago

dmvdougOP11mo ago

firesteelrain11mo ago

Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA

dmvdougOP11mo ago

1 more reply

dgfitz11mo ago

Rights don’t exist if you’re not a citizen. Isn’t that the whole crux of the debate? Glossing over that part, and as a former lawyer you should know better, means everything.

dmvdougOP11mo ago

You’re wrong about that. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, unless it targets non-citizens.” The First Amendment is a constraint on what governments may do.

2 more replies

eli_gottlieb11mo ago

firesteelrain11mo ago

Your bias is showing. Harvard could be wrong too.

This is all being argued in the court of public opinion now

ImPostingOnHN11mo ago

The bayesean priors aren't the same for the two parties: One is a 30-time convicted criminal infamous for lying to get his way (tens of thousands of such lies on the record); The other is not.

If your first instinct isn't that the infamous known liar isn't the one lying here, then the bias here is yours.

malcolmgreaves11mo ago

Why would you ever believe the orange criminal and his gang members?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse