‘Clinging to hope': Harvard students slam latest Trump visa ban
NEW YORK: Donald Trump's late night proclamation blocking Harvard's new international students has sparked fear and anger among existing students left in limbo amid the escalating showdown between the president and their university.
Alfred Williamson, a Welsh-Danish physics and government student in his second year at Harvard, said he was 'clinging onto the hope that Harvard will win this fight and that I will get to return next semester.'
Harvard had won a reprieve from a judge who paused an earlier bid by Trump to revoke the university's ability to sponsor the school's large international student population -- 27 percent of the total.
'Then the Trump administration does whatever it can to crush those dreams,' Williamson, 20, told AFP of Trump's proclamation Wednesday alleging that 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers' and also threatened existing international students with visa cancellations.
'This represents another authoritarian instance of executive overreach, which punishes international students for attending a university that refuses to bow down to the administration,' said Williamson who is vacationing outside the United States.
He said 'Trump is targeting Harvard because it has the integrity to stand up to his unlawful and un-American demands.'
Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity.'
The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding while threatening its tax-exempt status.
Harvard did not respond to calls for comment Thursday, but said Wednesday that Trump's proclamation was 'retaliatory.'
A graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government from India who declined to be named said: 'I just read this latest news. We have not received anything from Harvard yet, but this isn't surprising -- albeit concerning.'
'I knew it was going to be a long summer.'
- 'Grab for power' -
One international student who declined to be named for fear of retribution raised the plight of international students who had moved their lives to Harvard, leaving for the summer break, and now faced uncertainty following Trump's order.
'What about students who went home for the summer? There's a risk they won't be able to come back,' said the student who is currently seeking to renew their own visa.
Legal experts say a legal challenge from Harvard is all but inevitable.
'In response to the proclamation, we foresee Harvard University pursuing similar legal action by filing a lawsuit in federal court and seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily block enforcement,' said Laura Devine Immigration attorney Khensani Mathebula.
'In parallel, the university will need to act quickly on an administrative level to explore options for its international student population.'
A US Harvard student of government going into her fourth year who is friends with many international students, Olivia Data, said 'this news is heartbreaking and scary.'
'Our friends and classmates are being used as collateral in a dictator's grab for power, and none of us know where it will end or whether our university can protect its students in our current political system,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wondersabout the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sam Holmes)
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Thai PM visits flood-hit region as 3,700 homes inundated
Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra (centre) visiting flood-damaged homes in Phaya Mengrai district in Chiang Rai province on Saturday, June 28. - PHOTO: AFP BANGKOK (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra made an emergency visit on Saturday to the country's flood-hit north, where the military is evacuating residents after monsoon rains inundated thousands of homes. The Royal Thai Army says more than 3,700 homes were flooded across five districts in Chiang Rai province, alongside 80 hectares (200 acres) of agricultural land, with roads made impassable in three areas. Heavy rains are forecast to continue in the coming days, while the military has deployed rafts to ferry residents from their homes engulfed by muddy brown water, according to images shared on their Facebook page. Paetongtarn made a one-day trip to inspect damage in the hardest-hit area of Phaya Mengrai district, 25 kilometres (15 miles) from the Laos border. "The prime minister met with flood-hit communities and asked about their well-being, including access to food, clean water, and care for vulnerable groups," the government said in a statement. Paetongtarn made the visit as she faces mounting pressure in the capital Bangkok, where protesters gathered on Saturday to call for her resignation over a leaked diplomatic phone call. It remains unclear how many people have been impacted by the flooding. However the military said more than 4,400 households had been affected. Thailand's disaster prevention agency said it is closely monitoring water levels and urged communities to move belongings to higher ground in case of flash flooding. While Thailand experiences annual monsoon rains in the third quarter of the year, man-made climate change is causing more intense weather patterns that make destructive floods more likely. Widespread flooding across Thailand in 2011 killed more than 500 people and damaged millions of homes. - AFP
