Latest news with #GreenandSpiegel
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Green card holders turned US citizens now risk losing citizenship: Decoded
Imagine you left your home country, toiled in a foreign land for years before getting a green card and, eventually, US citizenship—only to be told that citizenship is now being taken away because of something you did years ago. This is the threat naturalised immigrants are facing in the United States under Donald Trump's second term. The US Department of Justice recently expanded efforts to strip citizenship from naturalised Americans, especially those accused of fraud or with a criminal record. An internal memo dated June 11 placed denaturalisation among the department's top five civil enforcement priorities. 'The civil division shall prioritise and maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,' said Assistant Attorney General Brett A Shumate in the memo. Nearly 25 million immigrants in the US hold naturalised citizenship, according to 2023 government data. What is denaturalisation? There are three ways to become a US citizen: By birth within the country, through American parentage, or via naturalisation. Only the third is reversible. 'In order to take away US citizenship, the US government must show that there was some fraud undertaken in applying for that citizenship,' said David Lesperance, an international immigration expert. 'In the case of birthright or lineage citizenship, the person would need to have never qualified from the beginning. But when someone naturalises, this process is called denaturalisation.' Under federal law (8 USC 1451), the government can start court proceedings to revoke naturalisation if it believes the person concealed or misrepresented facts. 'In all cases, the individual has the right to legal representation and the government carries the burden of proof,' Lesperance told Business Standard. Dan Berger, partner at Pennsylvania-based immigration law firm Green and Spiegel, explained the two routes available to the government. 'There is civil denaturalisation, which requires 'clear, convincing and unequivocal' evidence. Then there is criminal denaturalisation, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual knowingly used fraud to obtain citizenship, either for themselves or someone else.' The grey area for green card holders Green card holders, unlike citizens, can still be deported. Their status is reviewed by an immigration judge, not a federal judge. 'The government could try to take away a green card if it finds fraud in the application or if the person has a serious criminal conviction or doesn't keep the US as a primary residence,' Berger told Business Standard. While US citizens can live abroad indefinitely, green card holders are expected to live in the US. Prolonged absence or non-filing of taxes from abroad can lead to removal proceedings. Lesperance listed five ways green card holders could lose their permanent resident status: 1. Living abroad: Even short absences can trigger abandonment if border officials believe the person no longer resides in the US. 2. Voluntary surrender: Signing Form I-407 gives up permanent resident status and may carry financial consequences. 3. Fraud or misrepresentation: This includes lying or omitting information during any immigration process—not just the green card. 4. Criminal convictions: Under Trump's administration, any offence—not just violent crimes—may be grounds for removal. 5. Failure to remove conditions: Conditional green cards must be converted to permanent status. If this is missed, removal can follow. 'Green card holders who suspect they might be challenged under any of these categories should seriously consider not leaving or attempting to enter the US under the current administration,' Lesperance warned. But, what about minor or old offences? Civil denaturalisation has no time limit. 'So it can be initiated based on something that happened decades ago,' said Berger. Criminal denaturalisation, however, has a ten-year statute of limitations. The key test is whether the offence or misrepresentation would have changed the outcome of the citizenship application. 'For example, if someone didn't disclose unpaid child support or missing tax filings - these are issues that might have led to a denial,' he said. There's legal precedent limiting denaturalisation. In Maslenjak v. United States (2017), the US Supreme Court ruled that citizenship can only be revoked if the lie or omission was material—that is, it must have affected the government's decision. 'Minor mistakes or irrelevant lies are not enough,' said Lesperance. 'The government must show it would have denied citizenship had it known the truth.' What happens if a person becomes stateless? The US doesn't require new citizens to give up their original nationality, but many foreign governments, India included, automatically cancel citizenship once a person takes up another. 'Under the Citizenship Act, 1955, Indian citizenship ends automatically when someone acquires a foreign nationality,' said Lesperance. 'But if that foreign citizenship is later revoked, it raises interesting legal questions. A person could argue that their Indian citizenship should be reinstated.' For now, though, there is no safety net for those who become stateless in the US. A 2023 policy introduced under the Biden administration, which allowed stateless individuals to receive some leniency or case-specific support, was quietly rolled back in 2025. Current rules offer no formal pathway or special treatment for stateless persons. USCIS officers may consider statelessness as part of their discretionary powers—but that's not guaranteed. Stateless individuals cannot access international travel documents, unless they're classified as refugees or asylees. 'There are many stateless persons in the world who are not only disadvantaged in mobility but often in being able to remain where they are physically located,' said Lesperance. Consequences of denaturalisation Loss of rights: The person loses access to a US passport, voting rights, and government jobs. Risk of deportation: This depends on their prior immigration status and any criminal record. Impact on family: Minor children who gained citizenship through their parent may lose it if the parent is denaturalised. According to Berger, 'The person reverts to the status they had before becoming a citizen. The government can then attempt to remove that status as well.' Public figures not immune The crackdown has now extended beyond ordinary immigrants. Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York City, is under scrutiny. Republican Congressman Andy Ogles has accused Mamdani of concealing support for terrorism during the naturalisation process. 'The president is considering an investigation,' said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. And in a June 13 ruling, a federal judge revoked the US citizenship of Elliott Duke, a military veteran originally from the UK, who had admitted to distributing child sexual abuse material before becoming a citizen. Duke had renounced their British citizenship and is now stateless, according to NPR. What Indians in the US should know India has the second-largest population of foreign-born nationals living in the US. In 2024, nearly 49,700 Indians were naturalised as US citizens. 'Our best advice to all immigrants is to be careful and accurate on all immigration applications, whether for temporary visas, green cards or citizenship,' said Berger. He added, 'There are nonprofits across the US that support citizenship applications. And if someone faces denaturalisation, they must get strong legal counsel to challenge it in federal court.'
Business Insider
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Summer travel's X-factor: Trump
One of my best friends keeps joking that if he comes to the United States he's going to be killed. It's a joke in that he knows he's not actually going to die. But it's also a little serious in the sense that he's worried about coming into the country. He's Mexican and lives in Germany, and while he's been to the US dozens of times, he thinks it's riskier to come now, given President Donald Trump 's immigration policies. He'll be annoyed if he flies all the way here, gets to US customs, and is told to head right back to Europe. If he were to be detained, the guilt would cause me to melt. So we've axed our plans for a stateside get-together this summer and are figuring out a backup plan elsewhere. America is killing our fun, temporarily. Horror stories about foreigners and tourists getting tangled up at customs when traveling into the US under the Trump administration abound. The headline-grabbing incidents are having a chilling effect on travel from abroad and, in some cases, they're stressing out native-born Americans, too. Anxieties about Trump's border policies are throwing a wrench into travel plans for couples, families, friends, and colleagues with different immigration statuses. Border-related what-ifs are causing travelers to rejigger their plans or cancel them altogether. I spoke with people facing such a conundrum. Many believe things would most likely be fine, since in terms of the law, their ducks are in a row. But the potential consequences of something going awry feel too perilous. "The vast majority of our clients — even the ones with very secure immigration statuses — are extremely concerned with travel to the extent that it is altering major life plans," says Katelyn Hufe Karahan, an immigration attorney at Green and Spiegel. She practiced during Trump's first term, when they learned "anything horrible can happen and nothing's really surprising," she says. "It's unfolded in a way where you can't count on what's constitutional. You can't count on what's legal. You can't count on what should happen. You can't count on what CBP tells you is going to happen. So, it's tough to nail down." The administration says it's heightening immigration scrutiny in order to quell illegal immigration, tighten the border, and protect Americans. But for some people, the only impact is that it's complicating their plans and lives. A decade-old reckless driving conviction is keeping Tori, from California, and her husband from holding their wedding celebration in Mexico this fall. She's American; he's a green-card holder from Mexico. He hasn't had a problem over the charge beyond a quick extra check at immigration, but now, they're afraid reentry may be different. Tori, who asked that Business Insider withhold her last name, has been reading news articles, combing through message boards, and reaching out to people in similar situations online. In her search for answers, there's a flood of confusing, vague information floating around. "We heard about people with green cards and misdemeanors just being detained for two months or even having court dates for deportation," she says. "He has been talking to his lawyers, but even they've been going back and forth." At the end of the day, if we went through entry 100 times, would it go well 95% of the time? Probably. Given the worries, they've decided to postpone the event — a potentially pricey conclusion. She and her husband, who were recently legally married, have already paid half of the cost for their wedding, and guests have already booked rooms and hotels. "It's not worth it," she says. If her husband were to be detained, their lawyers would probably be able to get him out, but the couple worry that in the meantime, he could lose his job and, in turn, they could lose their house. Luckily, the resort where they're holding the wedding has been understanding about holding off. They're now waiting on her husband's citizenship application. Anna, from Illinois, has been a "Roman history nerd" for a long time, so she and her fiancé were excited to go to Italy for their honeymoon later this year and maybe swing by some parts of England, where she studied abroad. Her fiancé is from South Korea and has been living in the US as a permanent resident for 20 years, but they feel a trip to Europe would be too risky. "At the end of the day, if we went through entry 100 times, would it go well 95% of the time? Probably," she says. But all you need is one customs agent "who has decided that it's his mission in life to bring about Trump's America," she says. Anna's frustration with the situation is palpable. Her partner is a lawyer, and she's getting a master's degree in finance. They have a solid middle-class income and life. "We're quote-unquote doing it right," she says. "It's just at the end of the day, none of that really matters for this." They're considering honeymoon options in the US. Oh no, I can't take my vacation," may seem like a privileged problem, but problems are problems, and for many travelers, this is a new one. Some people are scared to leave the country they call home, even if they plan to set down temporary stakes in the US, and not be let back in. Their loved ones are on edge, too. Green-card holders are generally allowed to leave and reenter the US, and they have a legal right to return unless a judge revokes it. As with US citizens, Customs and Border Protection can ask green-card holders questions, but they can't require them to unlock their devices or hand over their passwords in searches. CBP has much more discretion to deny entry to people who are living in the country on a visa, such as for studying, tourism, or work. It could be because of a criminal record, because of some social media posts, or because the agent feels something about someone's story doesn't add up in terms of their immigration intent. In these cases, they can search devices, detain people, and tell them to turn around. Even though the laws surrounding immigration haven't radically changed, scrutiny from border agents has increased. In the US and abroad, there are a growing number of news stories about people being detained or denied reentry for what to many people may seem like inane and unclear reasons. And regardless of a person's status, Karahan says, border agents are testing the limits for everyone in terms of what they ask and try to access. "It's a dicey area, because the agencies are all pushing what's actually legal and what's constitutional," she says. Gadi Zohar, an immigration lawyer in New York, says he usually tells clients that if they're in the US on a green card, there probably won't be an issue, but it's "tricky" with visas. If a person were to leave the country and the US government enacted a travel ban on their home country in the meantime, Zohar says, they may not be able to return. "So if you're on a visa, I usually suggest staying in the US if you can," he says. Particularly if it's a discretionary trip, like a bachelorette party or honeymoon, he advises erring on the side of caution. A year ago, this wasn't really something he was telling many of his clients to worry about, because CBP wasn't as aggressive as it is now. "They're sort of searching to find things versus if something came up, they would handle it," he says. Karahan, similarly, isn't cautioning green-card holders as much, though if they're from a country with a travel ban, such as Venezuela or Sierra Leone, she would worry. Her firm is warning everyone to be "mindful" of their social media. (Different lawyers have different stances on some of this — Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell law professor, tells me everyone who is a noncitizen should worry about international travel, including green-card holders.) "Every client is different — for many clients with no known risk factors, we are advising they can travel as usual with certain caveats. For other clients, we are advising against it," Karahan says. In an emailed statement to Business Insider, a CBP spokesperson says that a sharp decline in illegal immigration under the Trump administration has allowed law enforcement personnel to "get back to doing law enforcement work, like conducting thorough vetting and interviews." They say lawful travelers should have nothing to fear from these measures, but if statuses or visa terms are violated, travelers may be subject to detention and removal. "A visa is a privilege, not a right, and only those who respect our laws and follow the proper procedures will be welcomed," the spokesperson says. It all seems a little bit hectic and crazy. Some people on green cards feel that leaving is too big of a risk. José, now in his mid-40s, was born in Mexico but has been in the US since he was 9 years old. He has a felony conviction from nearly 30 years ago, but he's been in and out of the country plenty since without issue. Now, however, his attorney has advised him not to leave. He's the only member of his family who isn't a citizen, so his predicament is causing chaos for everyone's plans. They've canceled a trip to Cancún, Mexico, for his mother's 72nd birthday and a trip to Jamaica with his youngest child. His lawyer says it's not worth leaving if it's not an emergency, "and even if it's an emergency, reconsider your options," he says. It's not just people already in the US who are adjusting their plans. Charlotte Eaton, a film producer in the UK, was invited to travel to a film festival in Miami earlier this year. It was an exciting opportunity, but then she started thinking about the news stories about tourists traveling to America who had been detained — specifically, one about a 28-year-old woman from Wales who was held for two weeks while traveling between the US and Canada. Ultimately, Eaton decided to forgo the trip. "I was very excited, and yet, in the same moment, I had this immediate gut instinct and said, 'I'm not going to go,'" she says. "It all seems a little bit hectic and crazy, and it doesn't make sense to risk that for a three-day film festival." Maia Mindel, an economist from Argentina, has a similar reaction, especially after seeing a story in The New Yorker by an Australian man who was deported and compelled to share some, let's say, extra-private photos in the process. She usually travels to the US once or twice a year. Now, she's weighing whether to go to a conference she's been invited to in Washington, DC. "I really have to think about this decision and say, 'What's the real risk, and what's the real problem that could come if I traveled to the US and get in trouble?'" she says. As of now, she's inclined to stay home. It's not great for the US economy or business owners that foreigners are afraid to come to the US. It's a hit to sectors that depend on foreign visitors, and for companies that need to bring foreigners over, even if for a visit, it mucks up plans. Karahan says her firm has seen sports tournaments facing issues getting the staff needed for events because of changes in attitudes toward visitor visas. Albert Paz, the owner of Gabriel's Travel Agency in New Jersey, has been helping his clients change and cancel travel plans in reaction to the political environment. "We deal with a lot of people from Hispanic backgrounds, Arabic backgrounds, so it's a big issue," he says. In light of immigration concerns, people are thinking twice about where they go and when they want to travel, and recent conflict with Iran and in the Middle East has prompted even more reconsiderations. "People have been changing from their European destinations, South American destinations, to more local and Caribbean destinations just to feel more comfortable," he says. For families in particular, the decision-making can be especially challenging. "Summertime travel is mostly families that are going away, and the first thing on their mind are their children. The last thing anybody wants to do is get stuck in another country, have problems at the airport." Vacation is supposed to be fun and relaxing. The point of traveling with others is to connect while disconnecting from the day-to-day. People go abroad to show the world to their kids, to celebrate with their partners, to experience a new adventure with friends. Swapping a flight across the Atlantic for a road trip out West isn't the end of the world, but it can feel unfair to have your options limited, especially for people who feel like they've followed the law and done everything right, or close to it. The dynamics of group travel are often tricky, and Trump-related immigration concerns add another unpredictable layer. It's uncomfortable to tell your partner you don't want to take that Costa Rica vacation you've been planning for a year because you'll spend the whole time worrying about getting home, or telling your parents abroad you won't be visiting this summer because you're afraid you'll be rejected on your student visa to go back to school in the fall. Some people I spoke with expressed a sense of guilt — over wedding guests who had already shelled out for a now delayed event, an older mother missing out on a birthday trip. There was also an air of resignation, a soft disappointment, and a shrug of "maybe next time." For US citizens navigating these plans, it's awkward, too. No one wants to be responsible for upending someone else's life — or at least costing them a return plane ticket — over a weeklong jaunt. Some Americans are even balking at the idea of leaving the country over concerns about what might happen when they try to come home. Yes, the thinking goes that it will in all likelihood be without incident, but what if it isn't? So instead of that Brazilian beach vacation, maybe you decide to finally figure out what's up with Maine. And hey, the US dollar is weak right now, anyway.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Harvard's Monday court date will be important for international students. Here's why
A Monday preliminary injunction hearing will hold the weight of what is to come next for Harvard University's foreign student population. The federal court hearing in Boston is in response to several attempts by the Trump administration to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students or allowing them to enter the country to study. The university began its second lawsuit against the federal government last month. Since the battle between the two, international students and U.S. students have been considering transferring to other universities. About 27% of Harvard's undergraduate and graduate students are international, according to 2024 to 2025 data. There are two temporary restraining orders from May and June that U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted. A preliminary injunction would effectively replace the two — which have expiration dates — to allow for the court case to continue until Burroughs makes a final determination on the legality of the case, according to Jonathan Grode, managing partner at immigration law firm Green and Spiegel. Read more: Why the fight over foreign students at Harvard has some US students leaving, too When Harvard asked for a preliminary injunction in May, Burroughs told the university and the Department of Homeland Security to agree on common terms over a preliminary injunction. In Thursday evening court filings, both Harvard and the Trump administration said they were unable to do so. Harvard international students have been wrongly detained at Boston Logan Airport and denied visas, according to Maureen Martin, Harvard's Director of Immigration Services, who wrote in a Friday court filing. The Trump administration, in a lengthy 44-page brief, stated its opposition to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the case. 'That Harvard has now become the subject of an immigration related enforcement action is neither discriminatory nor retaliatory. It reflects considered enforcement discretion directed to address well-founded national-security concerns, which courts cannot question,' the federal government wrote. If Judge Burroughs sides with the federal government, past restraining orders will be null, putting international students at Harvard in a difficult situation, according to Grode. The hearing comes after the U.S. State Department ordered embassies around the world to resume processing Harvard University student visas last week. However, the university has been battling against the Trump administration since April. It began when the Department of Homeland Security said it was revoking a key certification that allows Harvard University's international students to study there. The institution was offered an ultimatum by the Trump administration to lose the certification or give up information about its foreign student population. Quickly after, Judge Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later stated that the U.S. would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students and increase vetting of social media accounts of student visa applicants. Following the revocation attempt, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation that barred Harvard's international students from entering the country. He also directed Rubio to consider stopping the processing of Harvard student visas. Another temporary restraining order was granted in response. Harvard has a separate lawsuit in reaction to the federal government freezing or cutting nearly $3 billion in federal funding, citing antisemitism at Harvard. The administration has claimed the university failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza. 'In the Trump Administration, discrimination will not be tolerated on campus. Federal funds must support institutions that protect all students,' the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wrote in May as it cut $60 million in grants to Harvard. As Trump cuts funding, these Harvard scholars consider leaving US — and academia Harvard researcher released from custody after months in detention Ex-Harvard professor fired after refusing COVID shot named to CDC vaccine panel U.S. House committee demands Harvard send them hiring policies for review Williams College stops accepting federal grants, opposing new policy Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump is threatening to block international students from Harvard. Is that legal?
Harvard has only a few more days to meet a deadline set by the Department of Homeland Security to submit detailed records about foreign students or lose a key certification that allows international students to attend the institution. Whether the institution is going to respond to the demands or pursue litigation remains to be seen. However, to many, the threat of revoking the certification was a surprise to begin with. The certification isn't frequently taken away, and, when it has, it is due to some sort of fraudulent activity, said Jonathan Grode, managing partner at immigration law firm Green and Spiegel. Read more: Could Trump's crackdown on foreign students exacerbate declining college enrollment? " I think in a normal world, there's absolutely no chance that Harvard would lose its SEVP program certification, especially considering its stature within the global perspective as a leading institution in the world," Grode said. A Harvard spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment about whether the institution had responded to the department and if it has plans to pursue legal action. About 27% of Harvard's undergraduate and graduate students are international, according to 2024 to 2025 data. Specific regulations give the federal government leeway to determine if an institution — in this case, Harvard — is not complying, Grode said. " Whether or not they're an overreach, a misinterpretation, these are things that the courts would decide," Grode said. So what does this mean for Harvard? The Student and Exchange Visitor Program, also known as SEVP, allows higher education institutions to issue visa application forms to prospective international students after admitting them. The forms are used to apply for a visa to enter the United States. The certification requirements include that the school is operational and instructing students, has the necessary facilities and adequate finances to operate, provides instruction to a degree or objective and meets state requirements to operate, according to the Department of Homeland Security website. Read more: 'An attack on all of us': Over 200 college presidents challenge Trump Institutions are recertified every two years, but can be evaluated at other points in time if they have information suggesting that it isn't complying with regulations. If the certification is taken away, an institution isn't allowed to enroll international students. Current students would have to choose between transferring to another institution, leaving the U.S., or changing their immigration status, according to the ICE website. An example of the certification being stripped occurred at Herguan University in California in 2016 after its CEO pleaded guilty to providing fraudulent documents to the Department of Homeland Security, according to East Bay Times. In a letter to Harvard last week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said having foreign students attend Harvard is a 'privilege' and 'not a guarantee.' Noem directed Harvard to submit eight pieces of information to the department on or before April 30, 2025. They include: Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's known illegal activity, and whether the activity occurred on campus. Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's known dangerous or violent activity, and whether the activity occurred on campus. Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's known threats to other students or university personnel, and whether the activity occurred on campus. Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel, and whether the activity occurred on campus. Provide relevant information on whether any student visa holders have left Harvard University due to dangerous or violent activity or deprivation of rights, and whether the activity occurred on campus. Provide relevant information on whether any student visa holders have had disciplinary actions taken as a result of making threats to other students or populations or participating in protests, which impacted their nonimmigrant student status. Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's obstruction of the school's learning environment. Provide relevant information regarding each student visa holder's maintenance of at least the minimum required coursework to maintain nonimmigrant student status. If Harvard doesn't comply with the request, Noem said it will 'be treated as a voluntary withdrawal' and the SEVP certification will be automatically taken away from Harvard without subject to appeal. The list of eight is 'seemingly innocuous,' Grode said, adding there is a lot of room for the federal government to determine that the institution didn't respond sufficiently, if they do respond to the demands. " Harvard could respond ... that we have no knowledge of any of this stuff. To the best of our knowledge, none of this is happening. But what if the administration has a video of a protest, and what if they say that that protest is in support of terrorism, and therefore, because you failed to identify this activity, then you have not responded to this letter truthfully?" Grode said. A lot of the demands are an attempt by the government to change the way the university functions and its independence, he said. Read more: Trump admin demands Harvard provide records of international student 'illegal activities' The requests are part of an 'all-out government attack on Harvard,' where anything that touches the federal government and the university is being looked at, said Sarah Spreitzer, from the American Council on Education. Spreitzer said she doesn't see, in the listed regulations, a clear reason why the certification would be taken away. 'If Harvard, for some reason, sees their certification revoked, that's basically limiting the students that they can admit, which starts to walk the line with academic freedom,' Spreitzer said. The letter sent by the Department of Homeland Security last week requires that Harvard respond to their letter by the end of the month. Harvard could reply without responding to the demands set forth by the department and legally challenge it, Grode said. If the department does take away the certification, they have to provide Harvard with a notice of their intent to withdraw it. Harvard would then have 30 days to respond and could seek an injunction to temporarily stop it from occurring and challenge it in court, Grode said. Harvard is already in the process of suing the Trump administration after it froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants. The institution is arguing that its constitutional rights have been violated. The federal freeze came hours after Harvard rejected demands from the Trump administration, claiming that the demands by the federal government went beyond its authority. 'Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government's terms as an agreement in principle,' a letter from two attorneys representing the school read. Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. Could it be a weapon in its fight against Trump? Could Trump's crackdown on foreign students exacerbate declining college enrollment? Harvard's president to talk stakes of Trump admin's demands in new NBC interview Researchers discover novel bacteria linked to deadly fever in New England ticks 'An attack on all of us': Over 200 college presidents challenge Trump Read the original article on MassLive.
