Latest news with #RümeysaÖztürk
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The Laws Propping Up Trump's Masked Deportation Army
It seems like every week now brings new written accounts and harrowing videos of federal agents—mostly from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, but also from the ATF, DEA, FBI, and other federal agencies detailed to Trump's all-encompassing immigration crackdown—engaging in what a worried public increasingly sees as police state tactics. Tufts Ph.D. student Rümeysa Öztürk was swarmed by agents, some masked, who took her away without presenting identification or a warrant, over her writing of a critical op-ed in a student newspaper. Agents have been filmed breaking car windows or, just this past week, waiting in immigration court in plainclothes and masks to detain immigrants whose cases had been unexpectedly dismissed. In the wake of each of these operations, there's the expected (and intended) community panic and the chill of fear among immigrants nationwide. But along with these feelings of alarm come a set of practical questions that observers pose over and over: Don't these people need to present warrants, especially to bust someone's car window? Don't they need to identify themselves, give a name and badge number, something to that effect? How can anyone be sure these often anonymous figures, carrying out what are presumably orders from the administration, are even agents at all? What guarantee do we have that they have a legal basis to detain any given person, or that the person they're detaining is the one they were looking for? Are they supposed to do this? Are they allowed? These are, unfortunately, not necessarily clear-cut questions, in part because this pattern of behavior is relatively new. Immigration enforcement agents have long conducted so-called at-large arrests out in the community, but what we've seen in these first few months of Trump's second term is the exception. Most ICE arrests historically have taken place in detention settings, such as local jails, often through the cooperation of local authorities. Now it seems that the agency is intent on shows of force out in the community. As Mark Fleming of the National Immigration Justice Center noted, officers are now apparently going after not just people with final orders of removal but those who haven't even been through any criminal or immigration process, using ICE-issued administrative warrants. 'It feels like there's something different going on that is deeply troubling. The covering of faces and the level of escalation of use of force in these encounters, that feels like there has been a permissiveness, a change in policy,' Fleming said. A lot of what people confuse for targeted ICE operations are also actually Customs and Border Patrol immigration checkpoints, which the agency is allowed to set up within 100 air miles of any external boundary, encompassing several states and about two-thirds of the U.S. population (an expansiveness the executive branch gave itself via regulation, since the statute only specifies 'reasonable distance'). Under the law, ICE, CBP, and other immigration agents are generally empowered to warrantlessly question people about their right to remain in the United States and to arrest those who they have 'reason to believe' are in violation of immigration laws, in cases where they believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained—that is, a flight risk. Naturally, this does not override the Fourth Amendment, and what constitutes a reason for a stop or an arrest has been extensively litigated. Most famously, in 1975, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, a case stemming from Border Patrol's discovery that Puerto Rican–born Felix Brignoni-Ponce was transporting two undocumented immigrants, after it stopped them based largely on, as agents admitted, their 'Mexican appearance.' The 9–0 majority opinion, written by Justice Lewis Powell Jr., ruled that it was unconstitutional for agents to use perceived race as a reasonable basis for a stop but then immediately defanged itself by allowing agents to consider a laundry list of factors in tandem, including 'the characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut.' In effect, SCOTUS gave the green light for racial profiling as long as it incorporated a variety of factors not limited to just race alone. Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, said a lot of the very public operations seemed to ignore the flight risk requirement. 'Someone who says, 'Please don't arrest me, my kids are at home.' 'Please don't arrest me, I'm going to pick up my kids,' or, 'My wife will come,' the sorts of things people say when they're arrested, there are reasons to think this person, in fact, has community ties,' she said. Fleming, of the NIJC, has been involved in long-standing litigation that has challenged several aspects of how agents conduct both warrantless and warranted arrests in the Chicago area. In the case of Castaño Nava v. DHS, the legal group presented evidence that agents had, among other things, not heeded the flight risk requirement and racially profiled people improperly. That resulted in a settlement that required agents to take into account whether immigrants they sought to warrantlessly arrest 'have community ties, so folks that have a home, have families, have gainful employment, are long-term residents ... if they have those sorts of ties to the community, there is not probable cause for their arrest,' Fleming said. The settlement only applied to the Chicago field office but was adopted as policy by ICE nationally. Still, in most of the recent viral videos, it does not appear that agents are trawling for arrests. Rather, they are targeting specific people, for which they would need warrants. Now these aren't warrants as most people would typically understand them—that is, those signed by a judge. ICE (for its civil immigration enforcement, separate from its criminal enforcement focuses) very rarely has judicial warrants in hand. Instead, it uses administrative warrants signed by supervisor agents in the agency itself. These don't allow agents to enter nonpublic areas of private property (there's an exception in the law for patrolling within 25 miles of a border), such as houses and apartments. But these warrants do allow them to arrest individual people on sidewalks and in cars. The NIJC is now litigating questions about these warrants, including how agents present them during operations. 'When they're making those arrests based on an administrative warrant in a public space, they need to serve, physically serve the warrant on the individual promptly upon arrest. That is something they clearly are not doing,' said Fleming. 'I don't think there's any true guidance as to showing the warrant. So, for example, you see videos [of bystanders] like, 'Show us the warrant. Show us the warrant.' As to the individual being arrested, they definitely need to serve the warrant as a matter of law.' The group is also alleging that agents are filling out blank warrants after they've already conducted arrests in order to get around the terms of the earlier settlement. In practice, that means agents don't necessarily have to show the warrant to witnesses but must serve an existing warrant to the target. As for the agents themselves, there don't seem to be any specific federal laws or regulations that would prevent them from wearing plainclothes; ICE agents are not an inherently uniformed force and rarely wear uniforms outside of specialized units like ICE Strategic Response Teams—which are effectively the agency's SWAT division. Ditto face coverings; obviously, there was a period during the pandemic when federal employees were encouraged or even directed to wear face coverings. Now there's no guidance that explicitly prohibits or discourages it. Some critics—including Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine in a recent letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, immigration coordinator Tom Homan, ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, and D.C. Field Office Director Russell Holt—have pushed ICE to have agents identify themselves, under federal regulations that purportedly require it. The trouble is, these regulations specify that an agent will 'as soon as it is practical and safe to do so … identify himself or herself as an immigration officer who is authorized to execute an arrest.' Not only can they argue that an active arrest does not make this practical, but what it means to identify themselves as an immigration officer is unclear. Does just saying, 'I'm an immigration officer' count? That hasn't been conclusively settled either way. Those same regulations also require agents to use 'the minimum non-deadly force' to effectuate an arrest, a regulation with which Winger of the AIC doesn't believe they're complying. 'It's true that the protections are less for motor vehicles than they are for homes, but the Fourth Amendment still applies to those kinds of stops, and it certainly seems in the examples that I'm aware of that ICE is very eager to use that show of force where it seems evident that it's not necessary,' she said. Congress has taken some recent stabs at beefing up requirements for federal agents to identify themselves. Tucked into the nearly 1,500-page 2021 National Defense Authorization Act—the annual military funding behemoth bill—was a provision requiring armed forces or federal law enforcement to individually and visibly display 'the individual's name or other individual identifier' and the branch or agency they worked for. Unfortunately, the provision only applies to agents responding to 'civil disturbances' and creates an exception for agents who already 'do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties,' making it rather toothless. Where this leaves us is that there's no single, clean answer to whether agents' conduct is strictly legal in each of these operations. Some bits are evidently unlawful, though the arrests as a whole have some legal basis. Yet, as Fleming argues, 'the law is a floor. The law is not where we should be; that is the floor of what's required.… I am reluctant to comment on whether [the conduct] is within the bounds of law, because it makes it sound like it's a permissible way of exercising the awesome authority of the federal government, and it's wholly inappropriate how they're going about this. None of these individuals pose any public safety risk.' The salient point is that while we tend to consider these things from the standpoint of basic legality, the matter of whether any given action is strictly legal is only one part of the question. The new and apparently reflexive practice to cover faces by default may not run afoul of any particular laws or regulations, but it does rightly offend our sense that law enforcement operates under some public scrutiny and constraint and that the people tasked with wielding the awesome power of a state monopoly on lawful violence should be identifiable. Speculation over whether right-wing militias or other groups who can easily buy a tactical vest and an 'ICE' patch off eBay could use this confusion to themselves snatch people off the street is valid and worth raising, but perhaps the more pressing question is the inverse one: What does it mean when official federal law enforcement agents from multiple agencies are tasked with carrying out a heavy-handed mission of dubious legality and with questionable tactics? As I pointed out in the wake of Mahmoud Khalil's arrest, this is all the natural result of a national security state allowed to reach its logical conclusion. It's now up to a stultified Congress and fractured courts to put the genie back in the bottle, if they can.
Boston Globe
27-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
US orders halt in student-visa interviews before new vetting
The cable says interviews that have already been scheduled can go ahead. It was reported earlier by Politico. Advertisement The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Rubio had foreshadowed further restrictions in March after plainclothes police arrested Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk outside her home. Öztürk, who helped write an op-ed supporting Gazans, was later freed on bail as she fights possible deportation. 'If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus—we're not going to give you a visa,' Rubio said at the time. Advertisement Tuesday's move comes days after DHS sought to block Harvard University from enrolling international students last week — an effort that was swiftly halted by a federal judge on Friday. The administration is also moving to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard, which total about $100 million, and Trump on Monday threatened to divert billions in grant dollars away from the university. Last week on Fox Business, Kevin O'Leary, who teaches at Harvard Business School, recommended a vetting process for foreign students, while praising them for intellect and patriotism. 'These students are extraordinary individuals and they don't hate America,' he said. 'Why don't we vet them first, check their backgrounds, clear them, and tell them, 'You graduate Harvard, you're an engineer or whatever, you stay here and you start a business here and you'll get funded here and you'll create jobs here because that's why you came here in the first place.''
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Open letter: UO journalism faculty, staff warn of growing threats to the press
An open letter to our journalism students and the University of Oregon community from faculty and staff of the School of Journalism and Communication. Dear students, colleagues and our community, Journalism and freedom of speech are under attack. We write this letter as proud faculty and staff in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon who feel the urgency of the times. These are not isolated events, anomalies in an otherwise functioning system. These are systemic and systematic attacks on the First Amendment by our own government. In recent months, the administration has targeted journalism. Lawsuits are in motion against '60 Minutes,' the 'Des Moines Register,' and the Pulitzer Prize Board while the Associated Press was banned from the White House for refusing to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Voice of America has been gutted, and an executive order would defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Our political leaders have set a tone of accusation and denial, and the label 'fake news' has normalized open hostility against journalism and journalists. Large corporations have the choice whether to fight or acquiesce. But these attacks chill the broader journalism landscape, pressuring local news organizations to make choices about whether to publish news that risks lawsuits and costly legal action. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University Ph.D. student, was arrested by plainclothes ICE agents on the streets of Boston on March 26 and was held in a Louisiana detention center for the act of writing an op-ed in her college newspaper. After six weeks in detention, a federal court ordered her release. From the highest offices of our government, we've heard rhetoric that characterizes journalists not as citizens doing the hard work of democracy, but as enemies to be discredited. And this rhetoric has spread to state and local government leaders, a contagious disease in a country that has lost its herd immunity. Let us be clear: These actions are not political disagreements or critiques of coverage. They are threats — direct and indirect — to the constitutional foundation of our democracy. You do not have to like what journalists report to support their right to publish. As teachers and staff, we train our students to report honestly, think critically and serve the public good. As a university community, we are charged with nurturing free inquiry, principled debate and the exchange of ideas across differences. These values are not partisan. They are democratic. To our journalism students: Your work matters. You are carrying on the essential, often risky work of bearing witness and seeking truth. Journalism is not an act of compliance. It is an act of responsibility. To our community: A free press is not a luxury. It is a safeguard. At its best, it holds power accountable, exposes injustice, and helps us understand one another. It is a check against the excesses of governments and corporations. To weaken it — whether through legal intimidation, rhetorical attacks or bureaucratic roadblocks — is to weaken the public's ability to know, to question and to decide. Silence is not neutrality. In moments like this, we must affirm, clearly and unapologetically: The role of journalism is essential. The right to report, to question and to publish is not a privilege granted by the government. It is a right enshrined in the First Amendment and defended by generations who came before us. Respectfully,Faculty and staff in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, including: Charles Butler, professor of practice; Christopher Chávez, professor; Ari Coburn, development program coordinator; Alex Segrè Cohen, assistant professor; Nicole Dahmen, professor; Andrew DeVigal, director, Agora Journalism Center; Therese Devoe, building & operations manager; Torsten Kjellstrand, journalist; David Koranda, professor of practice emeritus; Peter David Laufer, James Wallace Chair, professor; Dr. Regina G. Lawrence, associate dean and professor; Tai Le, communications & events assistant; Ed Madison, associate professor; Nick Mahlum, SOJC academic affairs project manager; Karen McIntyre, assistant professor; Joey McMurry, instructor; Annie McVay, graduate programs assistant; Juan-Carlos Molleda, dean and professor; Daniel D. Morrison, professor of practice; Deborah Morrison, Ph.D., professor, associate dean; Camilla Mortensen, Ph.D., instructor, Eugene Weekly editor; Hailey Nailor, career & academic advisor; Julianne Newton, professor and doctoral program director; Sung Park, professor of practice; Kym Rohman, instructor; Lori Shontz, professor of practice; H. Leslie Steeves, professor; John Sutter, assistant professor; Brent Walth, associate professor; Christine Wise, professor of practice; Will Yurman, instructor. This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: University of Oregon faculty defend First Amendment
The Guardian
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Fear on campus: Harvard's international students in ‘mass panic' over Trump move
Harvard's foreign students described an atmosphere of 'fear on campus' following an attempt by the Trump administration to ban international scholars at the oldest university in the US. On lush, grassy quads filled with tents and chairs ready for end of year graduation celebrations, international students said there was 'mass panic' after Thursday's shock announcement by the Department of Homeland Security. The move triggered cancelled flights home for the summer, scrambles for housing to stay in the US over the break, and even swift attempts to transfer schools. On Friday, Harvard sued for a 'blatant violation' of the US constitution and Allison Burroughs, a federal judge of the district of Massachusetts, temporarily blocked the White House from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, who make up an estimated 27% of the student body or around 6,700 students. Fearful of repercussions following a nationwide crackdown on academics and student protestors, including the arrest and detention of local Tufts University undergraduate, Rümeysa Öztürk, in nearby Somerville, in March, many students and staff spoke on condition of anonymity. One 24-year-old Ukrainian freshman, who is a Harvard undergraduate during term time and returns to a war-torn country during holidays, said that she has delayed her scheduled flights next week back to her parents who are displaced in western Ukraine, unsure if she can get back into the US. 'I feel really shocked,' she said. 'If I leave, I'm not sure I'll get back in. I'm lucky, I have housing the whole summer, so if I need to stay I can. Not all my friends have that. Some people are talking about transferring to different schools, but the transfer window is basically shut now.' She added: 'Getting into Harvard is a big deal, it's transformative, but this is outside our control. It goes against logic, but things go against logic in America right now.' A Chinese visiting scholar from Peking University in Beijing, here for an 18-month research trip for her PhD, called the legal battle 'really, really scary' and described 'mass panic' among her international friends when the attempted ban was announced on Thursday. The 28-year-old woman said: 'We stayed up all night talking about our options, our plan Bs. I was going to go to the UK this summer because my professor has a position in Manchester. I'm a bit worried I won't be able to get back in. I have to go back to Beijing to finish my PhD, but a lot of students here had longterm plans to stay in America. Harvard is like a special light in the world. If something happens to Harvard it makes me frightened.' A Haitian Masters student, who recently graduated, said a town hall organised by the university to talk to students about their fears had a waiting list of 100 people within minutes, and a campus wide text chat 'blew up with hundreds of messages in an hour'. But she added that the strong statement by Alan Garber, Harvard's president, and the block by the federal judge made her 'hopeful'. She added: 'They've got our back, I have to trust that they want what is best for all of us.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion A member of admin staff, who lives on campus with international students and works to support them, added: 'It's horrific and almost certainly unlawful. There is a feeling of fear on campus. Normally, you just face typical, internal student problems but when it is the outside world coming in it is hard to know how to help them.' She added that there was a 'misunderstanding that all international students are wealthy' and can afford to have cancelled or disrupted studies. 'I would say 50% of them need significant financial aid, and Harvard has a really robust system. They have already been so disrupted because of Covid. Maybe some students can transfer, but maybe they can't afford to go. And they have lost this once in a lifetime opportunity. Poof, gone.' Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community: 'We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action. It imperils futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities across the country who have to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams.' The Guardian has contacted Harvard for comment.
Boston Globe
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump administration revokes Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students
International students make up approximately a quarter of Harvard's student body. The Trump administration had threatened to revoke Harvard's certification last month if it did not turn over a wide array of documents, including disciplinary records, related to the university's international students. In recent months, the government has arrested and threatened to deport some international students linked to pro-Palestinian activism, including Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. Advertisement Harvard has sued the Trump administration over its attempt to influence the university by cutting its research funding and demanding that the university place some of its operations under federal oversight. Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said in a statement: 'The government's action is unlawful. We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard's ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University — and this nation — immeasurably. We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission.' Advertisement Nick Stoico of the Globe staff contributed. This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Mike Damiano can be reached at
