Latest news with #Yohnka
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DePaul University international student's visa status in jeopardy after being removed from SEVIS
CHICAGO — The future of a DePaul University international student's visa status in the United States is in jeopardy after a recent move by the federal government. The judge in Friday's hearing indicated that she would issue an order not to have the 26-year-old removed from the country. The plaintiff is a DePaul University master's student from India who is studying business analytics and is set to graduate in June. Read more: Latest Chicago news and headlines He is now suing the federal government after the Department of Homeland Security removed him from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) a database that tracks students and exchange visitors. According to his attorneys, being removed from that system could prevent him from working lawfully and securing his master's degree. In court Friday the plaintiff's defense team petitioned an emergency motion to speed up the lawsuit in hopes of reinstating their client's record in the database. Ed Yohnka, with the ACLU of Illinois, said similar situations are happening to international students across the country. 'What's happening is, is that people are being removed from the list that actually permits them to be in the United States, that's SEVIS, and even though their F-1 hasn't necessarily been withdrawn, they're just, you know, in this limbo,' Yohnka said. 'They're essentially authorized to be a student in the United States, but not to be in the United States.' Legal documents state that on April 8, the DePaul University student got an email from the university saying federal immigration officials had revoked his F-1 student visa status in SEVIS without explanation. LATEST CASES: Missing people in Chicagoland However, in court on Friday, the lawyer representing the government said the plaintiff maintains his F-1 status but his defense argues that being out of SEVIS means their client can't work in a program that offers employment related to his area of study. 'More than a thousand students across the country are facing this and it's not really clear, you know, what rationale, what standard,' Yohnka said. 'I think this is just really a continuation of this, you know, policy to eliminate anybody who the administration sees as other.' The next steps in the case involving the DePaul student are still evolving. The judge who presided over Friday's hearing said there are 15 similar ones in federal court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Illinois bill would require birthdate registration for new phones to shield kids from adult content
The Brief Illinois lawmakers are considering a bill that would require residents to submit their birthdate when buying a phone or electronic device. The proposal aims to block children under 18 from accessing adult content. Critics, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, raise privacy and access concerns. SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The so-called "Digital Age Assurance Act" would make Illinois the first state in the country to require all residents to register their birthdate when they get a new cellphone or electronic device. The purpose is to protect children under 18 from adult content. What we know Illinois State Senator Willie Preston (D-Chicago) says there's a near fail-safe way to protect kids under 18: pass a law that requires Illinoisans to enter their birthdate when they purchase a new cellphone or electronic device. "This is a one-time ask for your information and then you are either identified as an adult or an underage person," Preston said. He says the phone would store the information and then block kids under 18 from accessing adult websites or apps – something he believes parents will appreciate, since kids typically find ways around the rules. "You got a bunch of kids 10, 11, 12 or less running around as 25-year-olds online. And we need to stop it, and we can," Preston said. He says the law would ensure the information isn't shared, and that no other personal information is involved. "We're not calling for anyone's identity, we're not calling for ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation... we're just trying to identify children," Preston said. The other side The bill is supported by the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which says it would protect children from predatory websites. But it's opposed by groups like Planned Parenthood, Equality Illinois, and the ACLU. They say there are significant questions about privacy. "How will that information be stored, and how securely will it be protected? Where will it be stored and how securely will it be protected?" asked ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka. Yohnka also says it would block potentially adult content that they might not feel comfortable talking about with their parents. "Information about health, safety, identity, sexual identity, orientation... these are things which young people often explore through the internet they'll be blocked from, which could cause real harm to those children," Yohnka said. What's next The bill is currently sitting in a Senate subcommittee on social media and A.I. The Source FOX 32's Paris Schutz reported on this story.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jim Dey: Free-speech issues more complicated than some like to pretend
Mar. 12—ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka, in a commentary published in Tuesday's News-Gazette, gave a full-throated defense of free speech. "'Free speech on campus is lawful — no matter who is president," the headline stated. President Woodrow Wilson vehemently disagreed. But few others would. Yohnka's general proposition is dead on. Most of Yohnka's commentary was a negative critique of President Donald Trump. There's nothing wrong with that. Presidents can — and should be able to — take a punch. But it fell short, failing to recognize that freedom of speech can be a more complicated issue than it may seem at first blush. That's why the law books are bulging with judicial decisions addressing what constitutes freedom of speech — and what does not. Yohnka urged university officials to support the "great" and "lawful" tradition of free speech. But what does that mean? Too many people view free speech as a constitutional guarantee for others to express opinions they share. Au contraire. Free speech also guarantees people's rights to say or write things others may find despicable or disturbing. The ACLU was much more expansive than Yohnka in a Jan. 14 letter to University of Illinois bureaucrats in which it noted that it "monitored" the UI's response to last spring's anti-Israel protests and called for the UI to "show restraint" and respect for students' constitutional rights. The issue then was not what students were saying, but what they were doing while purporting to exercise freedom of speech. Let's call it free-speech-plus, the fact-intensive and sometimes controversial behavior that often accompanies free speech. The UI objected to students taking over university property for their tent encampment. The UI also objected to protesters using bullhorns, which were potentially disruptive to the teaching that occurs on campus. And the UI — as well as the local state's attorney — objected to protesters wrestling and fighting with police officers carrying out lawful orders to dismantle the tent city. In these kind of displays, campus and community rebels want to stick it to the man, speak truth the power, laugh in the face of would-be oppressors, afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. But, being mostly self-absorbed youngsters, they also want — or, more accurately, demand — their self-congratulating effrontery to be absolutely risk-free, with no recriminations of any kind relating to discipline or, especially, prosecution. That's not what happened at the UI. Hence the ACLU's warning letter. The protesters' expressive behavior was not the problem. But what went with it became the UI's problem. Former UI law school Dean Vic Amar, a constitutional scholar, has written that the concept of free speech does not allow protesters to take over public buildings, block public sidewalks used by people traversing campus or establish tent cities on public property. He has written that noise control is a "valid (government) interest" because teachers and students are in classrooms, libraries and labs pursuing their studies or research. Here's another issue that doesn't get much consideration: Tent cities can become nightmarishly filthy. That why "sanitation" is a "significant regulatory concern." As far as free speech goes, people are and should be free to have at it on all sides of an issue. While subject to time, place and manner restrictions, it doesn't cost a thing and can be a useful in calling attention to perceived wrongs. But speech-plus can be a horse of a different color. While it doesn't come with a get-out-of-jail-free card, protesters can invoke their own legal immunity by exercising their legal rights while simultaneously respecting those of others.
