Trump's attacks on universities get darker, with shadows reaching our shores

Anyone who might dismiss this as being just a few isolated cases — or who think it is desirable to just remove political opponents from the equation — should think long and hard about what it will actually take to maintain this kind of “criminalisation of dissent” over the long term… escalation is inevitable.

There is clearly an intentional narrative being pushed that defines anyone who disagrees with the current administration’s ideology as an enemy who should be punished. Even if the risk to any one person is currently relatively small, just the threat itself will have profound effects on individual’s decisions.

A massive brain drain seems inevitable but such a war on free speech will also radicalise people, even if it starts only in whispers. That will likely necessitate further oppressive measures to “stamp it out” and so forth, creating a vicious cycle. With each iteration the stakes increase, justifying increasingly violent measures & countermeasures on both sides, further increasing the consequences of — and the need avoid — actually being held accountable for those actions…

I'm concerned about this as well. If this keeps progressing, we could see a monoculture develop among elite institutions and media where the shots are being called by three letter agencies. We could get to a place where federal agencies are working directly with social media companies to coordinate censorship of dissent and set speech guidelines. If they don't oblige they'll be threatened with arbitrary enforcement and getting dragged out in front of Congress.

Eventually there could be an entire political capture of these social media companies, universities, journalists, NGOS etc where 90%+ of its employees subscribe to one political party .

But it gets even worse. If this continues we could see activist judges try to throw political rivals in jail. They would even change the law in order to try to get them to go to prison, combining misdemeanors into felonies.

And this says nothing about the rhetoric. By casting political opponents as villains, this invites assassination attempts and general lawlessness to intimidate people perceived as not falling in line. By this point the media will be complicit so there will be no investigation into these activities. Even a failed assassination attempt would be at most a few day story with no reporting on motive or coordination.

I too am very concerned about all of this.

So the final solution is a masked police force abducting people off the streets and rushing them onto a flight to a death camp in El Salvador?

I get you are being cute, but let's be real. Nothing "the left" did compares to this.

I don't agree with your characterization, but fine let me grant it for now.

The current issue isn't the US deporting or revoking visas. The issue is there's a process to both do that, which involves a trial, and a process to deport, which also involves a trial.

Neither of those are happening. Instead, the admin is unilaterally decreeing a visa or citizenship is invalid and then they are rushing individuals across the country with promises of a direct flight to El Salvador.

One of the many reasons we have trials is to ensure that the agency actually caught the right person.

There's SO much wrong with what you're saying. I hate that these things happen too, but ... stop the absurd hyperbole. This isn't criminal prosecution in any way shape or form.

1) ZERO citizenships are being "decreed invalid". I don't know where you get any ideas to the opposite.

2) revoking a visa does not involve a trial. ANY border control officer can do that, for any reason, including for no reason. This has always happened, including under Biden or Obama, only the reasons have changed (a bit)

3) only removing a green card requires "a trial". It's specified between scare quotes because it is called a trial but is NOT subject to the normal rules of justice (to give one extreme example: you do not have the right to a jury trial, you don't even have the right to be present at trial). The judges are employees of the executive (hired and fired, NOT appointed) and thus under the control of the executive (ie. Trump).

It's definitely a step up from the visa "process" but ...

It's like "youth court". It's called a trial. It happens in a courtroom. In youth court, the judges are actual judges. BUT IT'S NOT A TRIAL. You don't have the right to defense. You don't have the right to a jury trial (or the same as immigration, you don't even have the right to be present).

4) You can leave ICE detention by "self-removing". This involves proving you've booked a flight, and they will bring you to the airport to catch your flight. So you're not detained.

5) this is just utterly ridiculous: "One of the many reasons we have trials is to ensure that the agency actually caught the right person"

Yes. But these are NOT trials (even the green card removal isn't). To get US citizenship you must prove yourself for, at minimum, 10 years, often more, the the executive of the US government.

6) I would ALSO like to point out that what Trump is doing is the norm in the whole world. Including in Europe. In the Netherlands, protesting while on a VISA is stupid, and if you get arrested, you will be removed. Maybe not the first time, but it will happen. I hear France is the same.

1) Hasn't happened that I'm aware of, it's definitely something trump is loudly signalling he wants to do. Even issuing executive orders about it. [1]

2) Fair point.

3) You still have a right to appeal unfavorable determinations.

4) This assumes the ICE agents are following the laws. I don't believe they are.

5) Even as someone caught by ICE you still have the rights to an attorney and you have legal rights to claim this was a false arrest. ICE may have extra enforcement capabilities over non-citizens, it cannot hold citizens.

6) One of the most recent deportees, Rumeysa Ozturk, didn't protest. She wrote an op ed [2]. Further, ICE violated judicial orders not to deport. [3]

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/27/trum...

[2] https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/29/us/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-unive...

AFAIK the state has not explained why Ozturk's visa was terminated. The idea that it was because of an op-ed seems to be speculation by her supporters. I wouldn't be confident that a better justification exists, but we shouldn't make assumptions.

To me, this is entirely problematic thinking.

Having the state police arrest people without an explanation is in and of itself evil. Citizen or no.

So yeah, I'm going to make the worst assumption about why they are doing this because they should have to explain themselves. We still, presumably, live in a democracy where the state is accountable to the people. Letting the state police remove civil rights for opaque reasons should always be treated as them doing it for the worst possible reasons.