Aside from the moral outrage, these government Visa actions are radically anti-capitalist. He paid for a student visa, he paid for classes, he pays for housing, he's paying for services and bam... he cannot collect the service he paid for. This undermines this entire revenue line for America; selling high quality university level education.
> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote.
That sentiment sounds nice, but it's kinda messed up: it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections). It's like, if someone loans you their car, insisting they shouldn't be able to ask for it back because you didn't have say in the decision.
Ultimately, if you're actually for democracy, you have to be fine with policy changing in whatever way the electorate decides it should change.
> it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections)
Why did you go from “fewer rights” to “more rights”, skipping right over “the same rights and privileges, at least around things like not being kicked out unexpectedly”.
Cooperation always requires this kind of coordination, though.
It's equivalently messed up to do something like say "You can borrow my car on Thursday to drive to the doctor" and then wait for the person to show up on Thursday only to say "Nope - changed my mind".
Basically - cooperation requires honor. It requires that parties value that the things they say they will do are the things they actually do.
---
My biggest problem with the current administration is that - regardless of what you might like or dislike about their policies - I think it's impossible to argue that they are honorable.
They explicitly do not value what they say. They are dishonorable - in the rawest, most traditional meaning of that statement.
That behavior inevitably leads to strong social backlash from the other parties involved. Some psychology studies strongly hint that this is literally built into us: We value punishing bad behavior even if it means loss more than we value accepting it at a gain.
I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful).
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin
> I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant.
That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies."
Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
>That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies."
Well, yes. Ideological stability is arguably a desirable property (even if you disagree with specific aspects of it) but regardless of that it is a stable attractor. Practically speaking, if your system permits people to run on a platform of dismantling the system, it will soon be replaced by one that doesn't permit that. You would do well to accept that, and choose carefully the immutable terms on which you would like to base your government.
The US civil war was fought over slavery. Was that worth fighting for? I think so. Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Last line of defense when politics breaks down, as history repeatedly teaches.
Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? Perhaps we have a disconnect if I’m arguing human rights and you’re arguing economic systems as what the fight is over politically.
> Human rights are worth defending with force, imho.
Yeah, but what are they? The devil is in the details.
> Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point?
It's not a boogeyman, it's a clear and obvious example of "democracy" without actual choice, the apotheosis of "what electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant."
The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D. The causal links between political opinion and someone's propensity to vote are also far from straightforward. The feedback loops between media and the evolution of people's political opinions might be stronger than any principles people imagine themselves having. Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate, except that companies with "news" in the name but who emphatically argue in the courts that they are not news and only idiots would believe that they are, are the ones who really won this election, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
Immigration policy was the single largest policy issue of the Trump campaign. No, you can't play this game. No one is surprised that this is the policy. Everyone heard what he said about immigrants.
What I think you're trying to say is that some people fooled themselves that this was all a bit[1], and that he wouldn't actually do the things he was very clearly and very loudly saying he would do.
But he would, and he did, and now he has. And that's on you, not some fiction you told yourself about the candidate.
[1] Not the only such area. See the embarassing mess in Bill Ackman's twitter output over the past week.
Maybe you would need to explicate your definition of "immigrant" before continuing. All visas are "temporary" so that is a meaningless qualification in this context.
> immigrant (noun) - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
The US has two classes of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Student visas are the latter along with things like tourist visas. People here simply to go to school on student visas are not immigrants.
It's worth noting that this is another example of the "Trump would never do that" to "Okay, first of all, I don't agree with your definition of 'concentration camp'" pipeline.
Maybe if your politics are far left, but nationwide polling showed that he was consistently trailing Clinton. Even diehard Bernie supporters would admit he was left of Clinton, and considering that there are Republican candidates as well, it's laughable to claim he was a "compromise" candidate.
Please re-read my comments about the feedback loop between media and voting behavior. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. Making the obvious conclusion, of course polls would reflect this disparity.
>There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders.
So you take national poll numbers, apply a handwavy fudge factor for "mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders", and conclude that Sanders is the "compromise candidate"? Doesn't seem very rigorous. It also doesn't address the fact that Sanders was the left-most candidate, and there are republicans to the right of him and Clinton. On a spectrum of Sanders, Clinton, and whatever other Republicans there are, there's no plausible case to be made that Sanders is somehow the "compromise" (median?) candidate. Finally, the" mainstream news" denigrated Trump as well, arguably more. Does that make him the "compromise candidate" even more?
Would you like to revise your comments now that you understand your assumptions are misplaced? I suggest you do a lot more reading into the sentiments depicted by mainstream news sources on each candidate before replying.
I do hope that Americans letting Trump have another go at being the worst president in history means I'll never have to hear Americans ever whine about free speech in europe, ever again.
Carnegie Mellon isn't really set up for correspondence courses, especially in the electrical and computer engineering program (which is quite hands-on).
But I'd hope the university would figure out a way to be flexible on this topic. The students (and alumni) are watching; it's a good opportunity for the uni leadership to step up and get creative with a novel challenge.
I think they go after these high profile cases because it sends the message they’re tough on immigration, even if they’re not. I’m not a betting man, but I would be surprised if a post-hoc analysis of the Trump administration didn’t show an in test in illegal immigration’s during his tenure.
> Murphy believes this may be happening from an expunged DUI case involving Ma in 2023. "That [DUI] didn't result in the finding of guilt. I understand the records were expunged," Murphy said. "The case was dismissed and expunged after he went through the process."
You initially stated (in a now-flagged comment) the charges weren't dismissed, even contesting a word-for-word direct quote from the article. As a result, I'm not certain we should trust your "100% chance" assertions.
Courts largely don't find you "innocent" outside of post-conviction exonerations. Just "not guilty".
So, FWIW the text of the article says explicitly that it was not a conviction.
But regardless: we all know that it isn't "because" of a DUI conviction, that is a proximate cause (or just an excuse). Deportation is an explicit and very clearly stated policy goal of the current administration. Very clearly this is being pursued in that context and for the reasons stated. They're doing what they were elected to do.
That it is also unjust and horrifying is an unfortunate side effect, demanding (I guess) that some people try to excuse it as a DUI thing.
They just want to see the numbers go up because people kept saying Biden and Obama deported more people and the easiest people to deport are the ones where you have all the paperwork already, you know where they are, where they work and can easily send them out.
Actually finding criminals to deport takes time and work and these people don't have time to actually do a real job.
Apparently that was only because he completed a (court mandated?) rehab program? I guess that's technically not a conviction, but not the same as innocent, or even a "case dropped" (in the sense most people would expect).
> If the accused is directed to attend a pre-trial diversion or intervention program, where no admission or finding of guilt is required, the order may not count as a conviction for immigration purposes.
That's for determining whether someone can be naturalized, not whatever Trump's doing.
>One of the general requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). GMC means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides.[1] In general, an applicant must show that he or she has been and continues to be a person of GMC during the statutory period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.[2]
>The applicable naturalization provision under which the applicant files determines the period during which the applicant must demonstrate GMC.[3] The applicant’s conduct outside the GMC period may also impact whether he or she meets the GMC requirement.[4]
That's not surprising at all. Permanent residents (ie. green card holders) generally have more rights than temporary visa holders (you can't be refused entry at the border, for instance), and are harder to deport.
No. They get more rights because the process of getting residency and citizenship is stricter than a short term visa. Once you have the status, you've got more protection.
Plenty of people can get a tourist visa but would not be permitted to settle here.
I hope Switzerland offers him a visa and a diploma from EPFL. We need smart people.
Wouldn't know it from how restrictive your immigration laws are
[flagged]
Aside from the moral outrage, these government Visa actions are radically anti-capitalist. He paid for a student visa, he paid for classes, he pays for housing, he's paying for services and bam... he cannot collect the service he paid for. This undermines this entire revenue line for America; selling high quality university level education.
What does anti capitalist mean in this situation? I'd say it's mostly anti Asian than "anti-capitalist".
Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote.
> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote.
That sentiment sounds nice, but it's kinda messed up: it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections). It's like, if someone loans you their car, insisting they shouldn't be able to ask for it back because you didn't have say in the decision.
Ultimately, if you're actually for democracy, you have to be fine with policy changing in whatever way the electorate decides it should change.
> it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections)
Why did you go from “fewer rights” to “more rights”, skipping right over “the same rights and privileges, at least around things like not being kicked out unexpectedly”.
Cooperation always requires this kind of coordination, though.
It's equivalently messed up to do something like say "You can borrow my car on Thursday to drive to the doctor" and then wait for the person to show up on Thursday only to say "Nope - changed my mind".
Basically - cooperation requires honor. It requires that parties value that the things they say they will do are the things they actually do.
---
My biggest problem with the current administration is that - regardless of what you might like or dislike about their policies - I think it's impossible to argue that they are honorable.
They explicitly do not value what they say. They are dishonorable - in the rawest, most traditional meaning of that statement.
That behavior inevitably leads to strong social backlash from the other parties involved. Some psychology studies strongly hint that this is literally built into us: We value punishing bad behavior even if it means loss more than we value accepting it at a gain.
I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful).
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin
(The US is a federal republic, not a democracy)
> I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant.
That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies."
Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
>That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies."
Well, yes. Ideological stability is arguably a desirable property (even if you disagree with specific aspects of it) but regardless of that it is a stable attractor. Practically speaking, if your system permits people to run on a platform of dismantling the system, it will soon be replaced by one that doesn't permit that. You would do well to accept that, and choose carefully the immutable terms on which you would like to base your government.
The US civil war was fought over slavery. Was that worth fighting for? I think so. Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Last line of defense when politics breaks down, as history repeatedly teaches.
Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? Perhaps we have a disconnect if I’m arguing human rights and you’re arguing economic systems as what the fight is over politically.
> Human rights are worth defending with force, imho.
Yeah, but what are they? The devil is in the details.
> Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point?
It's not a boogeyman, it's a clear and obvious example of "democracy" without actual choice, the apotheosis of "what electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant."
[flagged]
The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D. The causal links between political opinion and someone's propensity to vote are also far from straightforward. The feedback loops between media and the evolution of people's political opinions might be stronger than any principles people imagine themselves having. Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate, except that companies with "news" in the name but who emphatically argue in the courts that they are not news and only idiots would believe that they are, are the ones who really won this election, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
> The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D
Immigration policy was the single largest policy issue of the Trump campaign. No, you can't play this game. No one is surprised that this is the policy. Everyone heard what he said about immigrants.
What I think you're trying to say is that some people fooled themselves that this was all a bit[1], and that he wouldn't actually do the things he was very clearly and very loudly saying he would do.
But he would, and he did, and now he has. And that's on you, not some fiction you told yourself about the candidate.
[1] Not the only such area. See the embarassing mess in Bill Ackman's twitter output over the past week.
People on temporary student visas aren't immigrants and have nothing to do with immigration.
What's next? Mass deportation of tourists?
Maybe you would need to explicate your definition of "immigrant" before continuing. All visas are "temporary" so that is a meaningless qualification in this context.
> immigrant (noun) - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
The US has two classes of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Student visas are the latter along with things like tourist visas. People here simply to go to school on student visas are not immigrants.
It's worth noting that this is another example of the "Trump would never do that" to "Okay, first of all, I don't agree with your definition of 'concentration camp'" pipeline.
>Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate
Maybe if your politics are far left, but nationwide polling showed that he was consistently trailing Clinton. Even diehard Bernie supporters would admit he was left of Clinton, and considering that there are Republican candidates as well, it's laughable to claim he was a "compromise" candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for...
Please re-read my comments about the feedback loop between media and voting behavior. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. Making the obvious conclusion, of course polls would reflect this disparity.
>There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders.
So you take national poll numbers, apply a handwavy fudge factor for "mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders", and conclude that Sanders is the "compromise candidate"? Doesn't seem very rigorous. It also doesn't address the fact that Sanders was the left-most candidate, and there are republicans to the right of him and Clinton. On a spectrum of Sanders, Clinton, and whatever other Republicans there are, there's no plausible case to be made that Sanders is somehow the "compromise" (median?) candidate. Finally, the" mainstream news" denigrated Trump as well, arguably more. Does that make him the "compromise candidate" even more?
Certainly not, and you should be ashamed to shove such falsities in my mouth.
The studies I saw focused on the negative sentiments toward Clinton:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-does-sand...
and section 3 of https://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/PO_139.pdf
Would you like to revise your comments now that you understand your assumptions are misplaced? I suggest you do a lot more reading into the sentiments depicted by mainstream news sources on each candidate before replying.
I do hope that Americans letting Trump have another go at being the worst president in history means I'll never have to hear Americans ever whine about free speech in europe, ever again.
Finish online?
Carnegie Mellon isn't really set up for correspondence courses, especially in the electrical and computer engineering program (which is quite hands-on).
But I'd hope the university would figure out a way to be flexible on this topic. The students (and alumni) are watching; it's a good opportunity for the uni leadership to step up and get creative with a novel challenge.
There is no point in the cruelty because the cruelty is the point.
I think they go after these high profile cases because it sends the message they’re tough on immigration, even if they’re not. I’m not a betting man, but I would be surprised if a post-hoc analysis of the Trump administration didn’t show an in test in illegal immigration’s during his tenure.
“Trump is back in town; we’re doing things the way we should have always been doing them.”
Nothing odd here. It seems to be the new normal:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/australian-w...
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The case was dismissed and expunged
Not the same thing as a conviction
[flagged]
The article says that.
> Murphy believes this may be happening from an expunged DUI case involving Ma in 2023. "That [DUI] didn't result in the finding of guilt. I understand the records were expunged," Murphy said. "The case was dismissed and expunged after he went through the process."
ctrl+f "dismissed" in the article
That exact phrase is present in the article. Just being realist about it.
Charges are dismissed all the time when there is guilt. It is not the same thing as innocent. There is a close to 100% chance he admitted guilt.
You initially stated (in a now-flagged comment) the charges weren't dismissed, even contesting a word-for-word direct quote from the article. As a result, I'm not certain we should trust your "100% chance" assertions.
Courts largely don't find you "innocent" outside of post-conviction exonerations. Just "not guilty".
[flagged]
His attorney is being correct. If he completed that program, the charge is gone and he has a clean record.
Taking a diversion plea deal, if offered, is a sensible choice, even if you're not guilty. It's substantially lower risk than fighting the charges.
(I'm also not sure which article you're quoting, but that line isn't in this one.)
If he was a white American they'd make him in charge of the whole goddamn military instead...
[flagged]
Pete Hegseth faces new allegations of alcohol abuse and misconduct
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/22/nx-s1-5270033/pete-hegseth-fa...
Hegseth’s ex-wife gives new statement to FBI amid scrutiny over his nomination
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/22/politics/pete-hegseth-ex-wife...
Why was my original post flagged and down voted? Thanks for this, didn't know about Hegseth having that kind of problem with alcohol.
So, FWIW the text of the article says explicitly that it was not a conviction.
But regardless: we all know that it isn't "because" of a DUI conviction, that is a proximate cause (or just an excuse). Deportation is an explicit and very clearly stated policy goal of the current administration. Very clearly this is being pursued in that context and for the reasons stated. They're doing what they were elected to do.
That it is also unjust and horrifying is an unfortunate side effect, demanding (I guess) that some people try to excuse it as a DUI thing.
They just want to see the numbers go up because people kept saying Biden and Obama deported more people and the easiest people to deport are the ones where you have all the paperwork already, you know where they are, where they work and can easily send them out.
Actually finding criminals to deport takes time and work and these people don't have time to actually do a real job.
[flagged]
That applies to a criminal conviction for DUI.
Which this person does not have, as the case was dismissed and expunged.
>as the case was dismissed and expunged.
Apparently that was only because he completed a (court mandated?) rehab program? I guess that's technically not a conviction, but not the same as innocent, or even a "case dropped" (in the sense most people would expect).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43654102
If true - that poster cites no source and previously couldn't read this article accurately - he, as stated, has no conviction on his record.
>that poster cites no source
Trivial to reverse search: https://triblive.com/news/politics-election/i-only-have-a-se...
Also trivial to find:
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter...
> If the accused is directed to attend a pre-trial diversion or intervention program, where no admission or finding of guilt is required, the order may not count as a conviction for immigration purposes.
That's for determining whether someone can be naturalized, not whatever Trump's doing.
>One of the general requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC). GMC means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides.[1] In general, an applicant must show that he or she has been and continues to be a person of GMC during the statutory period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance.[2]
>The applicable naturalization provision under which the applicant files determines the period during which the applicant must demonstrate GMC.[3] The applicant’s conduct outside the GMC period may also impact whether he or she meets the GMC requirement.[4]
You're trying to tell me that naturalization requirements are looser than a temporary student visa?
That's not surprising at all. Permanent residents (ie. green card holders) generally have more rights than temporary visa holders (you can't be refused entry at the border, for instance), and are harder to deport.
No. They get more rights because the process of getting residency and citizenship is stricter than a short term visa. Once you have the status, you've got more protection.
Plenty of people can get a tourist visa but would not be permitted to settle here.
[dead]