Latest news with #JathShao
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship: Supreme Court decision limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US Birthright citizenship: According to legal experts, the ramifications of Supreme Court's order curtailing power of district courts to issue nation-wide injunctions are onerous
Representative image (Picture credit: AP) In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AudioNova leder efter testpersoner i Aarhus til at teste det usynlige høreapparat Audionova Lær mere Undo Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Citizenship by birth curtailed even for legal immigrants; over 1 million Indians in green card queue impacted Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben Johnson , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In about half of U.S. states, schools say international students are losing visas. What's behind it.
Students from California to Ohio to North Carolina are losing their visas with no explanation and being taken off the street by plainclothes officers and finding themselves subject to accusations reserved for terrorists. As of Wednesday, authorities had revoked the visas of international students in at least 24 states — with officials largely citing a seldom-used 1952 foreign policy statute to take aim at their activism. Others' visas have been terminated seemingly for past charges like DUIs. Attorneys and advocates say it seems as though people who have protested in support of Palestinians, those with previous arrests and those with certain political social media posts are the likeliest to have been swept up. The focus on international students is part of the Trump administration's larger immigration crackdown and deportation machine, immigration attorneys and policy experts say, with immigrants of all statuses being scrutinized. 'It's just part of their whole plan about reducing immigration entirely,' said Jath Shao, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney who runs a virtual law firm and represents several international students, most of them Asian. 'They come after the small and the weak — people who don't have as many resources to defend themselves.' Students and schools say there is mass confusion about the reasons behind the revocations, the legality of the government's actions and what options those without visas or status now have when it comes to getting their education. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Most of the students who have been targeted are studying in the United States under the F-1 and J-1 visas. The F-1 visa allows noncitizens to enter the United States as full-time students at accredited education institutions. And to qualify for those visas, people must meet certain criteria, including approval from ICE, proficiency in English or enrollment in courses that lead to English proficiency and sufficient funds to support themselves during their entire courses of study. The J-1 visa, available to students, teachers, researchers and other specialists, allows people to participate in approved programs for studying, conducting research, receiving training or demonstrating special skills. And after their programs are complete, they are required to return to their countries within 30 days. The State Department began revoking visas last month, targeting foreign-born students at schools across the country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that the State Department has revoked hundreds of students' visas, taking aim at international students who participate in political activism. 'It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,' Rubio said at a news conference last month. Those students have included Mahmoud Khalil, of Columbia University, a pro-Palestinian activist and green-card holder, whom ICE arrested and detained in early March, and Rümeysa Öztürk, of Tufts University, whom immigration officials apprehended on the street near the school a few weeks later. Other cases fall outside the bounds of political protest, like that of Doğukan Günaydın, a Turkish student at the University of Minnesota, who was arrested in front of his home in St. Paul at the end of March because of a 2023 drunken driving conviction. Shao said he has encountered many other cases of students in fields from materials engineering to epilepsy research. Some students were given vague reasons for the visa revocations, while others weren't given any at all. Many schools said they were in the dark, as well. Stanford, for example, said it found out about six visa revocations while it was doing a routine check of its Student and Exchange Visitor Information System database, which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. 'It really feels like somebody wrote a computer program: 'If arrested, then terminate,'' Shao said. The State Department directed NBC News to comments spokesperson Tammy Bruce made Tuesday at a media briefing. 'We don't discuss individual visas because of the privacy issues involved,' Bruce said. 'What we can tell you is that the department revokes visas every day in order to secure our borders and to keep our community safe.' The Department of Homeland Security recently created a task force that uses data analytic tools to scour international students' social media histories for potential grounds to revoke their visas, three sources familiar with the operation previously told NBC News. They also said that the task force is searching for charges and criminal convictions on students' records as well. The Trump administration hasn't said publicly why such students are being singled out over others. But immigration attorneys and policy experts say it all goes back to the centerpiece of the Trump campaign: mass deportations. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney and policy analyst with the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said it is an example of the administration's taking a 'whole-of-government' approach to that immigration strategy. 'Here we're seeing the Department of State working to cancel the visas of many students and those actions being done in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, which is the agency in charge of prosecuting these deportation cases in court,' Bush-Joseph said. In the cases of Öztürk and other students who have been arrested in recent weeks, the Trump administration has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the country would result in 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, said it's also an effort by the government to send a 'clear message about who is unwelcome in the United States,' especially since most students appear to be from nonwhite backgrounds. 'U.S. immigration policy seems to be driven by xenophobia, white nationalism and racism right now,' Mukherjee said. Multiple students have sued the government because of the revocations. The government maintains the right to revoke visas for various reasons, including DUI convictions or related offenses. They can also be revoked for national security purposes at the discretion of the State Department. 'Given the fact that the executive branch has such far-reaching discretion in many cases, it can be really difficult to determine what's going on in specific cases,' Bush-Joseph said. 'As a quick example of this, for a green card, someone can meet all of the requirements and still be denied just as a matter of discretion.' Typically, Shao said, students are unable to appeal visa revocations. However, they can still reapply for visas. And they still have other rights, including the ability to stay in the country, as long as they don't leave and try to re-enter. However, many of the international students' legal statuses were terminated, as well, making them potentially subject to detention and deportation, Shao said. But the government typically doesn't have the right to remove legal status without actions such as crimes of violence or unauthorized work or dropping out of school. 'Getting your visa terminated is not automatically a reason to reject your status,' Shao said. Still, many provisions of the Constitution protect all people, regardless of their status. And that means the students still have the right to defend themselves under due process and can't be deported without it, Mukherjee said. The Supreme Court affirmed that Monday in its ruling on the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, she said. The court ruled that people have the right to challenge the use of the act and should be given time to challenge their detentions before they are taken out of the country. 'These are some basic principles of law, basic principles underlying the Constitution, and should be respected by all three branches of government,' she said. 'We are at the brink of a breakdown in the rule of law and the immigration space.' Often, other forms of immigration relief are available to international students, including humanitarian relief. And while some students have received messages from the State Department urging them to self-deport, Mukherjee said they don't necessarily have to listen. Instead, she advises them to seek legal support. 'Simply because the notice says you have to depart the United States immediately or you need to depart from the United States within five days, that doesn't make it lawful or true or correct or accurate,' Mukherjee said. Shao also said schools should step in to provide support. 'You accepted these kids to come,' Shao said. 'The school should try to help the kids as much as they can.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
10-04-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
In about half of U.S. states, international students' visas are being revoked. What's behind it.
'It's just part of their whole plan about reducing immigration entirely,' said Jath Shao, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney who runs a virtual law firm and represents several international students, most of them Asian. 'They come after the small and the weak — people who don't have as many resources to defend themselves.' Students and schools say there is mass confusion about the reasons behind the revocations, the legality of the government's actions and what options those without visas or status now have when it comes to getting their education. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. What are the student visas being affected, and what do they do? Most of the students who have been targeted are studying in the United States under the F-1 and J-1 visas. The F-1 visa allows noncitizens to enter the United States as full-time students at accredited education institutions. And to qualify for those visas, people must meet certain criteria, including approval from ICE, proficiency in English or enrollment in courses that lead to English proficiency and sufficient funds to support themselves during their entire courses of study. The J-1 visa, available to students, teachers, researchers and other specialists, allows people to participate in approved programs for studying, conducting research, receiving training or demonstrating special skills. And after their programs are complete, they are required to return to their countries within 30 days. Which schools are being affected? The State Department began revoking visas last month, targeting foreign-born students at schools across the country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that the State Department has revoked hundreds of students' visas, taking aim at international students who participate in political activism. 'It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,' Rubio said at a news conference last month. Those students have included Mahmoud Khalil, of Columbia University, a pro-Palestinian activist and green-card holder, whom ICE arrested and detained in early March, and Rümeysa Öztürk, of Tufts University, whom immigration officials apprehended on the street near the school a few weeks later. Other cases fall outside the bounds of political protest, like that of Doğukan Günaydın, a Turkish student at the University of Minnesota, who was arrested in front of his home in St. Paul at the end of March because of a 2023 drunken driving conviction. Shao said he has encountered many other cases of students in fields from materials engineering to epilepsy research. Some students were given vague reasons for the visa revocations, while others weren't given any at all. Many schools said they were in the dark, as well. Stanford, for example, said it found out about six visa revocations while it was doing a routine check of its Student and Exchange Visitor Information System database, which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors. 'It really feels like somebody wrote a computer program: 'If arrested, then terminate,'' Shao said. The State Department directed NBC News to comments spokesperson Tammy Bruce made Tuesday at a media briefing. 'We don't discuss individual visas because of the privacy issues involved,' Bruce said. 'What we can tell you is that the department revokes visas every day in order to secure our borders and to keep our community safe.' The Department of Homeland Security recently created a task force that uses data analytic tools to scour international students' social media histories for potential grounds to revoke their visas, three sources familiar with the operation told NBC News. They also said that the task force is searching for charges and criminal convictions on students' records as well. Why is the Trump administration targeting students? The Trump administration hasn't said publicly why such students are being singled out over others. But immigration attorneys and policy experts say it all goes back to the centerpiece of the Trump campaign: mass deportations. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney and policy analyst with the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said it is an example of the administration's taking a 'whole-of-government' approach to that immigration strategy. 'Here we're seeing the Department of State working to cancel the visas of many students and those actions being done in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, which is the agency in charge of prosecuting these deportation cases in court,' Bush-Joseph said. In the cases of Öztürk and other students who have been arrested in recent weeks, the Trump administration has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the country would result in 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, said it's also an effort by the government to send a 'clear message about who is unwelcome in the United States,' especially since most students appear to be from nonwhite backgrounds. 'U.S. immigration policy seems to be driven by xenophobia, white nationalism and racism right now,' Mukherjee said. What legal rights do students have? Multiple students have sued the government because of the revocations. The government maintains the right to revoke visas for various reasons, including DUI convictions or related offenses. They can also be revoked for national security purposes at the discretion of the State Department. 'Given the fact that the executive branch has such far-reaching discretion in many cases, it can be really difficult to determine what's going on in specific cases,' Bush-Joseph said. 'As a quick example of this, for a green card, someone can meet all of the requirements and still be denied just as a matter of discretion.' Typically, Shao said, students are unable to appeal visa revocations. However, they can still reapply for visas. And they still have other rights, including the ability to stay in the country, as long as they don't leave and try to re-enter. However, many of the international students' legal statuses were terminated, as well, making them potentially subject to detention and deportation, Shao said. But the government typically doesn't have the right to remove legal status without actions such as crimes of violence or unauthorized work or dropping out of school. 'Getting your visa terminated is not automatically a reason to reject your status,' Shao said. Still, many provisions of the Constitution protect all people, regardless of their status. And that means the students still have the right to defend themselves under due process and can't be deported without it, Mukherjee said. The Supreme Court affirmed that Monday in its ruling on the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, she said. The court ruled that people have the right to challenge the use of the act and should be given time to challenge their detentions before they are taken out of the country. 'These are some basic principles of law, basic principles underlying the Constitution, and should be respected by all three branches of government,' she said. 'We are at the brink of a breakdown in the rule of law and the immigration space.' Often, other forms of immigration relief are available to international students, including humanitarian relief. And while some students have received messages from the State Department urging them to self-deport, Mukherjee said they don't necessarily have to listen. Instead, she advises them to seek legal support. 'Simply because the notice says you have to depart the United States immediately or you need to depart from the United States within five days, that doesn't make it lawful or true or correct or accurate,' Mukherjee said. Shao also said schools should step in to provide support. 'You accepted these kids to come,' Shao said. 'The school should try to help the kids as much as they can.'
