Trump admin yanks student visas in KY, Ohio. Why were some students targeted?
Some Kentucky and Ohio universities have reported some foreign students have had their visas revoked by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as part of what appears to be a wider, nationwide purge of international students who entered the country to study in the United States.
It's not known how many students have lost their student visas in Kentucky, Ohio and across the country. The revocations appear to be part of a much broader crackdown on foreign students. It's also not known why some students visas were revoked while others were not.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in late March more than 300 student visas were yanked largely because of those students' activism, particularly those who have supported Palestine. It's not clear if any of the students who have been forced to leave Kentucky and Ohio universities are part of this crackdown.
University of Cincinnati officials confirmed Monday they've has been notified that several students at the university have had their visas revoked. UC has an undergraduate and graduate population of 53,000 students. About 8.7 % of its student body— roughly 4,600 students — are international students, according to its website.
A Thursday campus message from UC President Neville Pinto said the revocation affects 'a small number of international students.'
'UC representatives are in touch with each of our impacted students, and we are doing what we can to support them during this incredibly challenging time. While we are aware that this is happening at universities across the nation, we have not been contacted by authorities, nor have we been given specific reasons for these revocations,' Pinto said in the email shared with the Herald-Leader.
University of Kentucky officials announced Friday that some foreign students on UK's campus had also had student visas revoked.
'The University of Kentucky has learned that the Department of Homeland Security has revoked the F-1 student visas and/or status for a small number of international graduate students at UK. University officials immediately reach out to students in these circumstances to provide information and support,' said UK President Eli Capilouto.
'We recognize the impact visa and/or status revocation has on our students. I know, too, that this news will surface many questions.'
UK has not released the number of graduate students affected. UK officials said it had 1,300 international students at the Lexington-based university. It's total enrollment is 36,000 students, according to its website.
Jay Blanton, a UK spokesperson, said because the number of students is so small, it does not want to release any information that would compromise student privacy.
Student visas were also revoked at Campbellsville University, a small private college in Southern Kentucky. Peter Thomas, assistant vice president for global services and senior international officer at Campbellsville University, told Inside Higher Ed students enrolled there had visas revoked because of criminal infractions, 'even though they were found innocent or the case [was] dismissed.'
It seems some universities' students were targeted by federal immigration officials while other universities' foreign students have not.
Officials with Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond and University of Louisville said Monday they have not been notified of any student visa terminations.
Northern Kentucky University officials did not immediately return emails asking for comment.
Herald-Leader reporter Monica Kast contributed to this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit the Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600-million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' Raza writes for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats are spending $20 million to learn how to talk to men. Here's what they should do instead
It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. Democrats are spending $20 million on a program called SAM, or 'Speaking with American Men,' to help them learn how to communicate with the demographic that is shifting the political landscape in the Trump era. 'Above all,' it urges, 'we must shift from a moralizing tone.' But that's what Democrats do best! The Dems could have saved that money and gotten better advice on winning back voters by spending $30 on UC law school professor Joan C. Williams' new book, 'Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back.' Bay Area liberals — and those like them around the country — are part of the problem. She calls them 'the cultural elites.' College-educated voters who are in the upper 20% of income-earners in this country. You know the type. Perhaps you are the type. The virtue-signaling, sign-posting, Facebook-oversharing, holier-than-thou tsk-tskers among us. 'That's us, most of us in this room,' Williams said during a recent book reading in Berkeley. 'Too often, we don't rail against economic elites, but we also fuel that narrative that we look down on people in the middle over time. They're 'deplorables' (Hillary Clinton's description of some Donald Trump supporters) 'clinging to guns and religion' (Barack Obama's line). They're 'stupid Trump voters who don't understand their own self-interest' (typical liberal Facebook post, an allusion to Thomas Frank's 'What's the Matter With Kansas?'). These are all class insults that just fuel the far right.' All those pulldowns do, Williams said, is 'reinforce the right's populist scripts that elites are looking down on you.' And that script is playing nonstop on your favorite conservative media outlet. Williams cites a study showing that former Fox News host Tucker Carlson mentioned the term 'ruling class' in 70% of his episodes from 2016 to 2021. Yes, Carlson is an annoying, bow tie-wearing dweeb, but he also hosted a top-rated cable news show. And his relentless messaging was echoed across the conservative world, including by Donald Trump. It was effective. Two-thirds of non-college-educated voters — once the base of the Democratic party — have consistently backed Trump. Meanwhile, only 20% of ads run by Democratic House candidates in competitive districts in 2022 'critiqued economic elites in any way whatsoever,' Williams writes. Williams notes there are two kinds of populism: 'The left's version of populism: 'They're robbing you blind.' Where the villains are the economic elites, the 1% as we like to call them. And then there's the right's version, which is 'They (the cultural elites) look down on you.'' Republicans do the bidding of the 1% (like the Trump tax bill that disproportionately rewards wealthy taxpayers) by co-opting the working class voters onto their side through culture wars against the cultural elite. 'We keep walking into the same old traps over and over,' Williams said. For 40 years. Nevertheless, Williams doesn't scold liberals. Instead, she suggests ways to win back working-class voters. Here's the most important: 'Make them feel seen.' Feelings rule among progressives, she said. She cites the virtue-signaling yard signs that are everywhere in the Bay Area: 'In this house, we believe: Black lives matter / Women's rights are human rights / No Human is illegal / Science is real / Love is love / Kindness is everything. 'But that empathy and connection is strictly optional when it comes to working-class people,' Williams said, guessing what a liberal might say about them: 'They're just dumb people who are trashing democracy, who are duped by the right.' Said Williams: 'We are very upset about how people are disadvantaged by race and gender — and completely blind, or largely blind, to people who are disadvantaged by class,' she said. The backlash: That unfeeling toward working-class voters, Williams said, puts a target on the backs of immigrants and trans kids and people of color, and 'sculpts anger against them,' she said as some may wonder, Why are we less deserving than them? Williams said if you're asking why working-class voters 'are so angry, they're angry because we have a rigged economy.' Over the past 35 years, the wages of college graduates have increased 83% while those of working-class Americans have stagnated. And if the left doesn't channel that anger, Williams said, 'We know who will.' Here's one of her tips for winning them back: Candidates should stop focusing on 'defending democracy.' Defending democracy is low on the scale of needs for someone working three jobs who can't afford decent child care. 'Defending democracy is not best done by talking incessantly about defending democracy,' Williams said. 'And the people who we've lost — non-college voters — they're not too interested in defending democracy, because they think democracy has failed them. We need to focus on economics, not defense of democracy.' Take how liberals often talk about climate change. Calling conservatives 'climate deniers' may be accurate, but it comes off sounding like 'We're smarter than you.' she said. Instead, progressives can connect with farmers, who can become messengers who can say, 'I can no longer grow what my grandfather grew on this land,' Williams writes. In coastal and fire-prone areas, she writes that progressives 'can point out that insurance companies are already changing underwriting habits due to fires and floods exacerbated by climate change.' It's a way to unite different classes in a populist way against Big Insurance. When it comes to religion, progressives often look down at churchgoing non-college grads. That's a mistake, as religion is central to their lives, Williams writes, providing 'for many non-elites the kind of intellectual engagement, stability, hopefulness, future orientation, impulse control, aspirations to purity and social safety net that elites typically get from their careers, their therapist, their politics, and their bank accounts.' She tilted the chapter that contains that passage: 'Therapy's expensive, but praying is free.' 'Religion is very functional in the lives of non-elites,' Williams said. 'Religion is so powerful in offering sort of mental ballast and stability that being a believer actually erases the effects of class disadvantage.' In 2020, 84% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump, a thrice-married man who bragged about sexually assaulting women on the 'Access Hollywood' tape. Williams notes that 40% of college grads say they are neither spiritual nor religious. Williams is not advocating that progressives move toward the center and abandon advocating for marginalized groups that can be politically polarizing, like the trans community. 'Politically, it doesn't make sense,' Williams said at her Berkeley reading last month. 'Raise your hands if you will support a Democratic candidate that gives up on all of the issues that you cherish most.' Instead, she suggested channeling Sen. John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat whom she paraphrased as saying, 'If you get your jollies bullying trans kids, then you really need another job.' She said Fetterman is using a 'blue-collar style of conversation. It's not fancy, it's not policy based. It's poking fun at somebody. He's doing all the things that Trump does. Trump channels a certain style of American working-class masculinity to victimize trans kids. Some politicians, not all of them, can channel the same style of masculinity to say, you know, if you're bullying kids, you know, you got to find another job.' The challenge is finding Democrats who can pull that off.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
