WVU acknowledges revocation of student visas
Apr. 10—MORGANTOWN — WVU on Thursday said it is continuing to "work directly " with a number of students and graduates whose international visas have been revoked recently by the federal government—but would not discuss what such a process might entail.
The university is keeping the identities of the involved students confidential.
"At this point, we're not able to provide specifics beyond this, " spokeswoman Shauna Johnson said in an email confirming the revocations.
To date, three students and three alumni on the downtown campus have been affected, Johnson said, along with three more students at the WVU Institute of Technology in Beckley.
That includes the revocation of their student visas and termination of their records through the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS as the network is commonly known, Johnson said.
Each person programmed into SEVIS came back with the same message, she said: "Name found in criminal records check."
The action in Morgantown and Beckley is part of a national sweep across campuses nationwide that began with last month's arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and Columbia University graduate student who led protests at his school last spring.
Then, the mission was to target students involved in pro-Palestinian activism or speech.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, in fact, vowed the administration would continue to be relentless in targeting, in his words, "these lunatics, " so deemed by the White House as threatening U.S. foreign-policy interests through their protests.
However, as colleges and universities are now telling the Associated Press, that national net has apparently taken a wider cast.
More schools are seeing visas stripped from international students who have no known connections to such protests — but may have, say, a traffic violation on their record which then be cited to pull the academic credential.
There's a difference between persecution and watching out for the best interests of the U.S., said Michelle Mittelstadt, director public affairs at the Migration Policy Institute.
"What you're seeing happening with international students is really a piece of the much greater scrutiny that the Trump administration is bringing to bear on immigrants of all different categories, " she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Council tax bills set to rise at fastest rate for two decades, economist warns
Council tax bills are set to rise at their fastest rate for two decades in the wake of Rachel Reeves' spending review, according to the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Paul Johnson said that local government in England did 'perhaps a little bit better than it might have expected' out of the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday, but the 'sting in the tail' is the assumption that 'council tax bills will rise by 5% a year' as part of the funding. The core spending power of councils is set to increase by 2.6% a year from next year, and 'if English councils do choose 5% increases – and most almost certainly will – council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05', Mr Johnson said on Thursday. On Wednesday, Ms Reeves said that ministers will not be 'going above' the 5% annual increases in council tax. She told ITV: 'The previous government increased council tax by 5% a year, and we have stuck to that. We won't be going above that. 'That is the council tax policy that we inherited from the previous government, and that we will be continuing.' The biggest winner from Wednesday's statement was the NHS, which will see its budget rise by £29 billion per year in real terms. Ruth Curtice, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, has said that Britain is turning into a 'National Health State'. Overnight, the think tank said Ms Reeves' announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ms Curtice said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although Mr Johnson warned on Wednesday the money may not be enough. In his snap reaction to the review, Mr Johnson said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.'
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Pension change boon to Chicago police officers, firefighters, but additional hit to taxpayers
Last-minute changes approved by Illinois lawmakers in the waning days of the session will cost Chicago taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in their first year and billions over time by giving some police officers and firefighters more lucrative pensions. Lead sponsor Sen. Robert Martwick, a Chicago Democrat, told the Tribune the tweaks were a negotiated fix agreed to by Mayor Brandon Johnson and Gov. JB Pritzker that was promised to both bring parity between Chicago and downstate first responders and help bridge a shortfall in benefits for employees hired after 2010. Johnson's finance team estimated the initial cost would be $52 million in 2027. Budget watchdogs warned it will add billions to the city's pension liability, a figure that topped $37 billion by the end of 2023. 'It adds to the city's burdens at the worst possible moment, with no consideration of the city's actual capacity to meet those burdens,' said Joe Ferguson, the president of the Civic Federation. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski's office is still 'conducting a comprehensive analysis' of the long-term cost of the legislation, her team said in an email, and would have updated figures in the coming weeks. 'Given the speed with which the amendment was introduced, any estimates at this stage would be preliminary and subject to change.' Downstate first responders received boosted benefits as part of the state's landmark consolidation of their pension investments in 2019. Chicago police officers and firefighters argued they deserved the same and were assured that lawmakers would make good later. Dave Sullivan, a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, wrote in the union's monthly newsletter that several years ago Pritzker called 'personally to assure me that he would make Tier 2 parity … a reality,' and he looked forward to the governor's signature. Pritzker's office didn't respond to a question about whether there was such an agreement and said the bill was under review. Martwick said Johnson 'understood a promise was made. I give him credit' for living up to it. 'He continues to show — unlike so many of his predecessors — a willingness to solve the problem and consistency in terms of living up to those steps' to do so. Mayor Lori Lightfoot more vocally opposed pension sweeteners during her term, including a last-ditch attempt to convince Pritzker to veto firefighter pension legislation that was projected to add between $18 million and $30 million to the city's annual bill. Johnson, however, supported a similar bill for police in 2023, adding an estimated $60 million to the city's immediate pension tab and $1 billion to the police fund's total liability. Jaworski did file an opposition slip to Martwick's amendment in the Senate, testifying the change would cost an estimated $52 million in its first year and characterizing the proposal as 'an unfunded mandate,' her office said. The Johnson administration has been aware of the police and fire effort since at least two years ago, when the General Assembly considered similar legislation and delayed it at the request of the city, the bill's sponsors said. Simmering behind the city change is the failure of both city and state officials to come up with a fix for a projected shortfall in Tier II retirement benefits. Despite concerns that benefits for public employees at some point won't be equal to what Social Security would provide — a violation of a federal 'safe harbor' law — the legislature did not pass a comprehensive Tier II overhaul this session. And Chicago officials who face the same problem haven't published the findings of a pension working group convened two years ago. Martwick, a member of the working group, said this legislation does help partially address their shortfall. Separately, the state budget passed this session includes a $75 million set-aside to help pay for the first year of expected adjustments for state Tier II employees. The Chicago pension legislation makes three key benefit boosts. First, it increases the final salary cap used to determine pension benefits for police and fire retirees from $127,283 to $141,408. It also changes the rate at which that salary cap for police officers and firefighters rises every year. The current rate is either half of the rate of inflation or 3%, whichever is lower. The bill switches that calculation to the full rate of inflation or 3%, whichever is lower. The third tweak changes the time frame to determine that final average salary figure. Right now, police officers' benefits are based on the average of the highest salary from eight of the last 10 years of their career. The bill allows for an alternate calculation based on four of the last five years, a boon for officers who received big raises at the very end of their careers. Officers would be paid the higher of the two. Firefighters already won that 'dual-method' calculation in 2023. Downstate police and fire pensioners won it as part of the consolidation effort. The change will definitely cost more, but how much will not be clear until the city or its pension funds perform an actuarial calculation. Ferguson said based on the federation's 'back of the envelope' math, the fix creates a rising annual cost that will top out at $750 million by the 2050s and add billions to the funds' long-term liabilities. 'It came late, mostly under cover of night, within the context of what was an utter whirlwind at the end of session,' Ferguson told the Tribune, noting the proposals were tucked in amid language to ensure children of deceased service members receive part of their parents' pension benefits. 'It's curious and it's troubling that something of this magnitude was able to fly by without there being more meaningful discussion of its near- and long-term impact,' Ferguson said, especially from Chicago legislators. Martwick filed the language as a gut-and-replace amendment in the last week of the spring legislative session. Lawmakers considered the legislation in a Senate committee a day later, and House lawmakers both discussed the matter in committee and passed the bill on the floor on the final day of the session. Moving massive bills in the final days of spring session is often the norm in Springfield, which also saw lawmakers publicly introduce and pass a $55 billion budget package within days of adjournment this year. 'It's important to underscore that the City was given very limited time to respond and was unable to conduct a fully validated, in-depth analysis before the hearing and the bill's passage — despite the fact that the legislation will have significant and lasting implications for the City,' a spokesperson for Jaworski said. Given the city knew the adjustment was a possibility years ago, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Kifowit said it was 'disingenuous' to suggest the bill came at the last minute. The Oswego lawmaker and bill sponsor pointed to video-gaming terminals as a potential funding source. State lawmakers repeatedly throughout the legislative session called for the city to use terminals to resolve its funding needs, but Chicago currently doesn't allow them. Critics fear terminals would cannibalize revenues at Bally's casino, which are already dedicated to public safety pensions. 'Their lack of movement on providing revenues for pensions is, to me, not compelling enough to disenfranchise the Chicago Police Department and the benefits that they rightly deserve,' Kifowit said of the city. State Sen. Li Arellano Jr., a Republican from Dixon and a former mayor of Dixon, was the lone 'no' vote when the bill went through the Senate Pensions Committee on May 28, a few days before the legislature adjourned. Given the low funding levels of Chicago's pensions, Arellano said he could not in good conscience 'say, yes, let's throw more debt onto Chicago taxpayers.' 'But since it was Chicago taxpayers footing this particular bill, there was a lot less resistance to it in the Senate,' he continued. No lawmaker, including Arellano, voted against the changes when they came up in the full Senate or full House. 'I think (what's challenging) for the Republican caucus is if none of the senators representing the city of Chicago itself had a problem with it, I think a lot in the Republican caucus said, 'Well, if this is what all of the voices representing Chicago want to do, who are we to disagree with them?''
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
105 South Koreans sue former president for ‘emotional damages'
SEOUL — It's been a season of legal woes for former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. His short-lived declaration of martial law on Dec. 3 first landed him in front of the Constitutional Court — which removed him from office later that month — and then in the Seoul Central District Court, where he is now being tried on charges of insurrection. There is also the group of 105 irate citizens suing Yoon for emotional damages related to his power grab, which sent special forces soldiers to occupy the National Assembly and brought the press briefly under military control. Filed shortly after South Korean lawmakers voted to overrule Yoon's martial law order last year, the lawsuit is demanding compensation of 100,000 won ($73) for each of its plaintiffs. The first hearing is due later this month. 'The defendant's declaration of emergency martial law and the actions that followed were unlawful, violating the plaintiffs' basic rights as South Korean citizens such as the freedom to one's life and body and the guarantee of human dignity, in addition to inflicting mental harm such as fear, anxiety, discomfort and shame,' the complaint said. Behind those words is Lee Gum-gyu, a 52-year-old attorney who specializes in urban development law, but has become nationally known for facing down presidents in their impeachment trials. The first was conservative president Park Geun-hye, whom Lee, as a member of the legislature's legal team, helped oust in 2016 following a major graft scandal. The second — and the only other South Korean leader to be removed from office — was Yoon. As a member of the National Assembly's legal team in the Constitutional Court trial that confirmed Yoon's impeachment, Lee used his closing argument to speak of the fear he felt for his son, who was a conscript in the military. 'The fact of emergency martial law itself filled me with fear, but the thought that my son might be deployed to enforce it was even more horrifying,' he said. The civil suit, he says, is largely symbolic — one final rebuke of Yoon. It is why Lee gathered exactly 105 plaintiffs: the number of pro-Yoon legislators who boycotted his impeachment. And the asking sum of 100,000 won ($73) each? 'I thought about keeping it at 10,000 won ($7.30), but that seemed like too little. My pride wouldn't let me,' Lee said. 'Obviously there isn't a formula for something like this, but 100,000 won just seemed more appropriate.' The success rate of emotional damages claims against former presidents is not high. The closest example is a series of similar suits filed by South Korean citizens against Park in 2016. They sought 500,000 won ($364) per plaintiff. But the Supreme Court dismissed those claims in 2020, saying that 'even if there were South Korean citizens who felt emotions like anger due to the defendant's actions, it cannot be said that this constituted a level of mental distress that necessitates compensation for every citizen.' Still, Lee figures that his suit against Yoon has at least a marginally higher chance of success, given the far graver offense at hand. 'The case against Park was related to corruption — it wasn't a case of the president unconstitutionally infringing on people's basic rights,' he said. 'The martial law forces actually went to the National Assembly and pointed their rifles at legislators and their staff. I do think that people's right to life was directly threatened.' Some legal experts agree. 'I am also curious whether this will work or not,' said a judge in Seoul who requested anonymity to comment on an ongoing case. 'Under current jurisprudence, I don't think it's entirely impossible.' Given South Korea's history with authoritarianism, Lee argues, the claim to emotional distress isn't just courtroom theater. South Koreans lived under a dictatorship as recently as the 1980s. Political repression and violence are still part of the country's memory. The last declaration of martial law was made in May 1980 by the Chun Doo-hwan military junta, which sent special forces units to violently quash pro-democracy protests in the city of Gwangju. More than 160 civilians were killed, many of them gunned down by soldiers in the streets. Lee, who is from Gwangju, remembers watching a tank roll down the street behind his house as a child. 'The national trauma from those events led to a real and deep fear in many South Koreans,' he said. Han Ki-chang, a real estate agent and one of the 105 plaintiffs, says that he suffered from 'martial law insomnia.' The term entered the popular vernacular in the last few months and has been covered by the national media as an anecdotal phenomenon, with some older South Koreans saying it stirred panicked memories of living under authoritarian rule. 'It was real. I had trouble sleeping in January and February,' Han said. 'And I could tell I wasn't the only one. Whenever I'd message people or post in a group chat in the middle of the night, a lot of people would respond, saying they needed to sleep but couldn't.' At least one other group is preparing their own emotional damages lawsuit against the former president. Lee, the attorney, expects that there will be even more suits because he has been sending out copies of his complaint to anyone who wants it. They can just fill in their names and file their own. 'If we win this case, that might make it possible for all 52 million South Korean citizens to claim damages,' he said. He quickly did the math: at $7.30 per person, a total of $380 million.
