Agree. The vast majority of people at those protests do not support Hamas as an organization and certainly not their methods. I simply believe they’ll be accusing people at the rallies that did have Hamas/Hezbollah flags of guilt by association.
Yes. The narrow case is that if you express support for a designated foreign terrorist organization that is grounds for denying your visa, or revoking your status. So if you are on a student visa and went to a protest wearing a hamas headband and carrying the flag then you’ll end up on a plane out of the US.
Where it gets iffy is the question about people who showed up to a protest and didn’t know or see or agree with the hamas flags being flown there
I don’t think we’re having the same conversation.
This EO is about going back over the visa documents for people who entered legally and reviewing them based on a changed standard.
The article is badly written with a sensationalized headline. The EO is written in standard legalese, and only related tangentially to the article. H1Bs likely don’t need to worry too much, but postdocs on that visa who went to a protest may need to reconsider their political activity. The fact that CAIR is quoted should give you a hint as to how this EO is expected to be applied - towards international students on F1 visas - specifically those who have taken part of campus demonstrations involving symbols from foreign terrorist organizations (Hamas flag, Hezbollah flags, etc).
Beyond that, it may be used as a stick against postdocs working on politically charged topics like climate change.
Understanding the context and motivations of the administration is critical in planning how to survive the next four years.
Ignore it at your own peril.
So the actual EO doesn’t call out H1B at all, so I’m guessing this is sensationalized as H1B is the most “visible” visa in recent news.
The context for this is likely the Moroccan national who recently committed a terror attack in Israel. He had a green card and that was supposedly part of the decision to grant him entry as a tourist to Israel.
That having been said, this will likely result in some international students getting deported whether deserved or not. Semi-intended consequences is what I’d call them.
or in Jerboa
My immediate thought is that Klinger will be happy.
Trump’s legacy will be long term damage to national security, rampant racism and discrimination, and widespread corruption.
The original article smelled wrong when they claimed to have broken AES. Thankfully, Bruce Schneier is far more authoritative than I ever will be and gives a short and succinct list of links to debunkings of this.
I hope you’re wrong about both Israeli territorial ambitions and the unwillingness of Hamas to release hostages.
How are the Egyptian media covering the news?
In all honesty, there are a few outcomes that are potentially worse if he is dead: Hamas splintering into many smaller factions, or treating him as a silent leader and refusing to release hostages because “he hasn’t ordered it”.
Hopefully Hamas will confirm and whoever replaces him will agree to release the hostages.
Iran is pretty fucking transparent with their goal: to destroy the Zionist entity. The posters literally say “wiping Israel off the face of the Earth is just the beginning”. And no, they don’t mean “dismantle the state mechanism” like some users here claim. They very much mean it in the “death to the Jews” way.
Framing it as purely defensive is just lying
Sanctions have not been effective - AQAH has been sanctioned since 2007, and only the direct military threat on Iranian planes bringing cash seems to be having the desired impact.
The quiet part is here in the details - Iran is Hezbollah’s financier - confirming what everyone has known for decades. AQAH is unlicensed, yet they do business with AQAH because they know that someone (Iran) will guarantee AQAH’s debts. More importantly, it shows a path forward for Lebanon - to simply enforce their existing sovereignty and laws - punishing banks that do business with unlicensed banks.
The electoral college is good for one thing and one thing only: boosting confidence that election fraud in one place won’t impact the result of the election.
Winner takes all was always stupid and needs to be replaced with proportional allocation, preferably with a more direct ratio to the actual population of votes. Basically, everyone doing what Nebraska and Maine do.
If you only look at the US (which a US court should) - it’s really between Chrome and Safari Mobile, and it’s a pretty even split to be honest - a bit in the favor of safari for mobile traffic, which is telling.
But the bigger issue is that they have undue influence in technical decisions to the detriment of consumers because they have a vertically integrated business.
Small strikes against any IRGC personnel stationed outside Iran - they’re fair game and on the table. We’re already seeing this with the strikes on Damascus and throughout Lebanon.
Also - based on the saber rattling and talking heads, it sounds like there are likely to be three potential targets: the dams, which would cause massive domestic economic damage to Iran; the oil facilities, which would cause massive economic damage to the Iranian regime; finally, known nuclear sites, which are in line with Israeli rhetoric about preventing Iranian nuclear ambitions.
I think cooler heads will prevail and the dams won’t be targeted, and without a regional coalition committed to a ground invasion with a goal of regime change, attacking the nuclear facilities won’t have the strategic impact that’s desired. Which leaves the oil refineries - there’s a natural bottleneck for Iranian oil production/export so there’s a short list of physical areas that need to be attacked for it to be effective.
Thinking on it further, IRGC headquarters should also be on the table. I don’t think it’s likely, but if it succeeds (and it’s likely to succeed - especially with direct US support) then it’s a huge win. But even if it does succeed I don’t see it leading to real regime change in Iran, so without that strategic impact it’s far less likely.
Only on signup
Anything using Blind as a “verified industry source” is going to be skewed to the type of person who uses Blind. Beyond that, it’s low sample size, and there are suspiciously round fractions for some of the larger companies. Worse, because Blind is blind - this doesn’t represent current employees, but merely people who worked at some point in the past at those companies.
Not saying it’s not good - just saying not to get overly excited over a badly done survey
DOGE is not meant to cut spending. It is to systemically root out opposition within the executive branch and promote the business interests of Trump, Musk, and their cadre.
This is a distraction to keep you occupied while they do something far worse.