Comment by andsoitis

Comment by andsoitis 2 days ago

22 replies

View on Hacker News

> is in saying things like attending a protest constitute grounds for deportation absent any published rules or guidance to this effect.

The law is clear that if you support a terrorist group, your visa application can be denied or your current visa revoked.

If we take Hamas for example, they are designated a terrorist group by: European Union, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom, United States, Organization of American States, Switzerland[1]

If you are in the US on a non-immigrant visa (you are a guest) and you go to a rally in support of Hamas, I struggle to understand why it would be controversial that the US can revoke your visa ("your permission to be in the US").

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g...

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago

> if you support a terrorist group

What does "support" mean in this context?

Reply View 5 replies
  • andsoitis 2 days ago

    Commonly, when we talk about "support" for an organization (or a cause) it can mean any of the following:

    1) financial (e.g. donations, membership fees, investments)

    2) human resources (e.g. volunteers, staffing, training)

    3) material & in-kind (e.g. equipment, office space, supplies)

    4) knowledge & expertise (e.g advisory, R&D, workshops, training)

    5) networking & partnerships (e.g. collaboration, referrals, advocacy alliances)

    6) policy & institutional (applies to governments, not individuals, so not relevant "in this context")

    7) community & social (e.g. public awareness, volunteer mobilization, cultural legitimacy)

    Reply View 4 replies
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago

      I appreciate the answer. I guess "attending a protest" falls under "public awareness" or "cultural legitimacy" if the protest is specifically about the organization being unpopular or demonized. Sticking with the Gaza situation example, most protests are along the lines of "Israel shouldn't do that" and not "Hamas needs more support". Claiming otherwise seems massively disingenuous; it's obvious that people oppose terrorism and Israel's actions for largely the same reasons.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • andsoitis a day ago

        > Sticking with the Gaza situation example, most protests are along the lines of "Israel shouldn't do that" and not "Hamas needs more support".

        Yes, here is the nuance, which I concur with and I would hope most reasonable people could agree on.

        In practice, protests are a mix of people but onlookers take a binary stance. It is not going to be difficult to see at protest a poster or cameras capture someone shouting something like "globalize the infitada! or or death to America".

        Complicating matters further, protest organizers and the protesters themselves have more of a fluid behavior and motivations - it is not a club where membership is controlled and patrolled, a protest's mission is usually a little vague and fluid, etc.

        And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together.

        This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's.

        It is deeply unfortunate.

        Reply View 2 replies
UncleMeat a day ago

The Taliban sucks shit. I also thought that the war in Afghanistan was a monstrous campaign of death and I publicly said this throughout the war. Should I be punished by the state for "supporting a terrorist group?"

I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group."

Reply View 8 replies
  • andsoitis a day ago

    > I'm very sorry but advocating for not bombing hospitals in Gaza is not "supporting a terrorist group."

    I don't think we disagree on this.

    In practice, protests are a mix of people but onlookers take a binary stance. It is not going to be difficult to see at protest a poster or cameras capture someone shouting something like "globalize the infitada! or or death to America".

    Complicating matters further, protest organizers and the protesters themselves have more of a fluid behavior and motivations - it is not a club where membership is controlled and patrolled, a protest's mission is usually a little vague and fluid, etc.

    And that is, I think, where the real risk lies - you are at a protest and you can find yourself surrounded by others who ARE supporting Hamas even if you're not and you get lumped together.

    This happens on "the right" as well. You'll have some Neo-Nazi's in a conservative protest against XYZ, and now all of a sudden they're all Nazi's.

    It is deeply unfortunate.

    Reply View 7 replies
    • [removed] a day ago
      [deleted]
      Reply View 0 replies
    • [removed] a day ago
      [deleted]
      Reply View 0 replies
    • boston_clone a day ago

      [flagged]

      Reply View 4 replies
      • andsoitis a day ago

        > Guess what, friend. If you have neo-Nazi's showing up to your protest and people don't immediately throw them out, you are now at a neo-Nazi event.

        Do you apply the same logic when people waving pro Hamas flags or chants show up at an anti-Israel rally?

        If you are, you are doing the same thing as the administration! If you do not, why the unequal treatment?

        Reply View 3 replies
slt2021 2 days ago

How is protesting against the genocide suddenly becomes “supporting a terrorist group”?

Only material support for terror group (fundraising and sending $$$ to people in the OFAC list)

Reply View 2 replies
  • andsoitis 2 days ago

    See my reply to sibling about what people generally mean with the word "support".

    Reply View 0 replies
  • [removed] 2 days ago
    [deleted]
    Reply View 0 replies
anigbrowl 2 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 2 replies
  • andsoitis 2 days ago

    > goalposts

    I'm sorry you feel that way, but perhaps what I can say is that I'm trying to be hyper-precise about the boundaries (as I see them at least), rather than move them.

    I think it is fine to be outraged about:

    a) systematic racist (read: selective) application of the law

    b) no due process

    c) egregious mistakes

    d) commanding the military to stampede cities (ok, in reality, it is more show than scary, but the precedent is unacceptable)

    What I don't think is valid is arguing that the government should not apply the law as it stands, which empowers the government to revoke or deny visas (or residency application or naturalization application) for reasons enumerated by the State Department: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-...

    Reply View 1 reply
    • anigbrowl 2 days ago

      Nobody was making such an argument and you know it.

      Reply View 0 replies