• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Latest gaffe - insert foot into mouth - from Orange Man.

www.ctvnews.ca

Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students

The Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students in its escalating battle with the Ivy League school, saying thousands of current students must transfer to other schools or leave the country.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students​

 
As usual there is more to this than "orange man bad". Harvard has some serious problems it has been refusing to address.
 
QV said:
As usual there is more to this than "orange man bad". Harvard has some serious problems it has been refusing to address.
Click to expand...
What are those serious problems that warrant the types of lawfare the Republicans bemoaned for years?
 
Brad Sallows said:
So what are they permitted to do when (incorrectly, unlawfully) they are denied access?

As noted above, both "sides" have committed errors. Each side ought to answer in court.
Click to expand...
No idea of US law, however the only errors committed were by ICE.

While immediate recourse to lethal force might be overkill, Congress has right of access. This is absolute. If the Rep had turned up with a dozen goons and forced entry through beating up ICE agents, there would still only be error on the part of ICE.

This is not a matter for the courts. Congress, if they had any guts, should have dropped all other business to affirm their standing and to deputize, honestly, whoever a given rep or senator chose to guarantee that standing and access. However, both houses are captured by a pack of fascist bootlickers, so that's not going to happen.
 
quadrapiper said:
No idea of US law, however the only errors committed were by ICE.

While immediate recourse to lethal force might be overkill, Congress has right of access. This is absolute. If the Rep had turned up with a dozen goons and forced entry through beating up ICE agents, there would still only be error on the part of ICE.

This is not a matter for the courts. Congress, if they had any guts, should have dropped all other business to affirm their standing and to deputize, honestly, whoever a given rep or senator chose to guarantee that standing and access. However, both houses are captured by a pack of fascist bootlickers, so that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
The American legislature is continuing a longstanding tradition of giving its power away to the executive.
 
CountDC said:
There is - you show up, they state you can't enter and you leave. if you feel they were wrong then you file the complaint and request entry on a set date.
Click to expand...
PrairieFella said:
US law states congressmen don't need permission to enter and inspect federal facilities. It's against the law to deny them, it's not against the law for inspectors to show up randomly.
Click to expand...

The "law" that gives Members of Congress access for purposes of oversight as per the guidance on ICE's website (it predates the incident at the New Jersey detention facility).

Facility Visits and Operational Ride-Along Guidance for Members of Congress and Staff

www.ice.gov www.ice.gov
As outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-93), Division D –Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2020, Sec. 532:

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens, or to make any temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a visiting member of Congress or such designated employee, compared to what would be observed in the absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.​
(2) An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.​
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of conducting oversight.
(c) With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).
Click to expand...

However, I would dispute that the arrest of charges against Congresswoman McIver were because she had a physical confrontation with DHS agents because of not being permitted to enter the facility. Read the complaint.

www.documentcloud.org

McIver-Complaint

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

It was, though, still a shit show on the part of DHS.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
The "law" that gives Members of Congress access for purposes of oversight as per the guidance on ICE's website (it predates the incident at the New Jersey detention facility).

Facility Visits and Operational Ride-Along Guidance for Members of Congress and Staff

www.ice.gov www.ice.gov


However, I would dispute that the arrest of charges against Congresswoman McIver were because she had a physical confrontation with DHS agents because of not being permitted to enter the facility. Read the complaint.

www.documentcloud.org

McIver-Complaint

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

It was, though, still a shit show on the part of DHS.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the precedent, written or otherwise, is as far as aides, pet experts, and other hangers-on when a rep or senator is poking around somewhere?
 
PrairieFella said:
What are those serious problems that warrant the types of lawfare the Republicans bemoaned for years?
Click to expand...
There are some examples in the article.

The president of Harvard saying whether calls for the genocide of Jews constituties harassment "depends on the context" is a good indicator as well.
 
QV said:
It's in the article.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this?

It also tapped into concerns that congressional Republicans have raised about ties between U.S. universities and China. Homeland Security officials said Harvard provided training to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps as recently as 2024. As evidence, it provided a link to a Fox News article, which in turn cited a letter from House Republicans.​
Click to expand...
​
If true, that is concerning...but is almost certainly not limited to Harvard Contracts between U.S. universities, China total more than $2 billion: investigation | The College Fix
​
Note that Fox News has reported significant concerns amongst some Republicans over the national security threat that Musk ties with China represent.: Elon Musk’s business ties to China create unease in Washington

Elon Musk’s business ties to China create unease in Washington​

​
Elon Musk’s ties to China are causing unease in Washington, including among some Republican lawmakers who have been among the billionaire entrepreneur’s ardent supporters.​
​
​
The concerns center on the potential for China to gain access to the classified information possessed by Mr. Musk’s closely held Space Exploration Technologies Corp., including through SpaceX’s foreign suppliers that might have ties to Beijing.​
​
Some lawmakers also are troubled by the lack of clear lines between SpaceX and auto maker Tesla Inc., which also is run by Mr. Musk and has extensive operations in China. Tesla has developed advanced battery packets sought by the Chinese, and China has adopted a less-expensive battery technology championed by Mr. Musk​
Click to expand...

Based on that, this has the appearance of targeting Harvard, if only pour encourager les autres....and avoids having to slap down the major donors to the current regime.....
 
PrairieFella said:
US law states congressmen don't need permission to enter and inspect federal facilities. It's against the law to deny them, it's not against the law for inspectors to show up randomly.
Click to expand...
That supports my comment. Show up, denied, leave and file the complaint. You don't get into a physical conflict just because someone is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
quadrapiper said:
I wonder what the precedent, written or otherwise, is as far as aides, pet experts, and other hangers-on when a rep or senator is poking around somewhere?
Click to expand...

The law, as I quoted it, seems clear. In addition to Members of Congress the following can "poke around".
(2) An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.
Click to expand...

The only limitation for "employee of" is
. . . the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a)
Click to expand...

". . . a facility described in subsection (a) . . ." is
any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens
Click to expand...

An imperfect search of that Consolidated Appropriations Act (and similar in subsequent years) from which this was quoted found it to be the only reference allowing Congress to actually go someplace and inspect facilities for the purpose of oversight. Or specifically, as written, that particular department cannot use any of the funds allotted by congress to impede or stop them from visiting that particular type of facility for the purpose of oversight. There may be other public laws over the years where Congress inserted similar language allowing them access or there may be an assumption that there is a general right of access by congresspersons. One example of that not necessarily being true is from 2020.

www.sun-sentinel.com

Wasserman Schultz went to inspect post office facilities over concerns of mail-in ballot delays. She was turned away.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz wanted to look into mail-delivery problems but was turned away from inspecting two South Florida post office sorting facilities before daybreak Friday. Her vi…
www.sun-sentinel.com www.sun-sentinel.com

Ms. Wasserman Schultz's response

Wasserman Schultz Leads Unanimous Bipartisan Push to Ensure Postal Facility Access, Oversight

When the time came for me to inspect a postal facility, to do a walk through, to drop by and really see what was going on there in my district, I was denied – not once, but twice. That’s simply unacceptable. We are Members of Congress. We do oversee the Postal Service. And when there is an...
wassermanschultz.house.gov

She attempted to include language similar to that for DHS to allow congressional access to post office facilities,
but I was unable to find it in the current legislation being considered.

Keep in mind that passage was included in appropriations legislation when Trump was in his first term and the actions of DHS/ICE were being questioned just as much as currently.
 
Last edited:
Brad Sallows said:
So what are they permitted to do when (incorrectly, unlawfully) they are denied access?
Click to expand...
Enter.
The law allows them to use whatever force is required to do so. They said, they aren’t armed and the ICE etc are

Brad Sallows said:
As noted above, both "sides" have committed errors. Each side ought to answer in court.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day the institutions are responsible to the electorate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top