(For what it's worth, at the time I wrote the comment, the rest of the comments on this story were about ICE raids).

Nobody knows anything about this story. He might be in custody, he might be in Indiana, he might be abroad, he might be about to get charged, he might not be, he might keep his positions at IU, he might have lost all his positions at IU.

It's an interesting story worth paying attention to because he's a prominent figure in an area of research we all pay attention to. But given some kind of criminal investigation is in process, and that he has a lawyer, there's no signal to derive from the fact that we can't get quotes from him in the media; that could just be him being smart.

Are you suggesting that it isn't helpful or useful to speculate that he was an undercover FBI agent working to infiltrate US-based dark web crypto gangs and that the University's actions tipped off the gangs? So when he went missing the FBI kicked into high gear? Just making stuff up like that doesn't provide clarity?

Uh, yea, this isn't useful. This a top researcher in his field. He isn't shitposting for lulz on discord undercover, lol.

Does he have a lawyer? It wasn’t clear who retained council, it sounded like it was just a woman living at the Carmel house, which could have been a rental tenant…

> The Chinese govt also has a pretty nasty track record of pressuring erstwhile Chinese citizens to engage in espionage by making life hard for family back in china

China also has a history of establishing "police" stations in foreign countries with the mandate to harass and control expats. They did this in Canada at least, surely they did in the US too.

I can only urge you to provide one or more good primary sources if you are making such a claim. It should be a given...

Sure. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rcmp-chinese-police-st...

Thank you! Reading this, it seems to be unclear/unspecified in the text exactly who or what group was involved in this or whether there was affiliation to the Chinese state. That's the part I'm really interested in though.

It was very clear.

I read through the linked text twice. Where?

One was shut down in Glasgow, Scotland and other UK cities:

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/chinese-secret-police-stati...

Here you go, you can pick one of the several hundred articles written about the topic over the past 3-4 years from the world's oldest, more reputable and foremost news gathering/journalism organizations.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&channel=ent...

What's a primary source in this context? The Chinese government?

I didn't know this before searching for it, but there's a wikipedia article with a list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_servic...

Very interesting, thank you!

This isn't some obscure conspiracy. This an open and known practice of the CCP.

Which should make it easier to provide a source. Other comments have already done so, I was able to read up on it.

This is one of those things that's so well known, with plenty of sources, it's kind of odd to have to ask for one. Any search should have been full of these results.

I don't think it is odd and I disagree with you. First, if you find too many search results, that is just as bad as not finding any. Secondly, when it comes to this specific issue, the quality of information can range from unusable to thorough based on what article about it you read. Given that "Secret overseas Chinese police force" is such a good headline, there are many many websites and lower tier news sites publishing about this. There seems to be no one catalyst publication that broke this story first. This makes it hard to establish any objective facts about it (for me). On top of all this, there may also be personal bias involved when reporting about it.

Given all this, why is it so odd for me to ask for more information here? Like, instead of discouraging me from asking for more information in the future, you could have listed the sources you feel are usable.

people seem downvote you, but I think this is a good example of how discussions SHOULD work.

> A: makes a strong claim, suggesting it to be well known

> B: doubts

> [100 people provide credible sources]

Also congrats for being 1 of 10000 today i guess https://xkcd.com/1053/

I didn't downvote the comment, but I would have done so. If we want to talk about how discussions should work then the commenter should have first spent two minutes researching and/or explained why sources like the Associated Press (my first result when copying and pasting the comment in DuckDuckGo) aren't reliable.

"I don't understand" is a good way to foment discussion. "I don't believe you" usually isn't.

I believe the Associated Press is a reliable source, I'm not sure where I stated otherwise...

I just want to state for the record that I didn't claim to disagree with the comment nor am I a conspiracy theorist, nor a Chinese spy... I only asked for more information (which other comments have then provided).

Yes. I didn't doubt the claim. But I was able to read a lot about the topic and inform myself better by visiting the links in some of the responses.

One may call me lazy but I think it was a valid request and I also believe that informing oneself is not quite as easy as it perhaps seems. I certainly don't think it's as simple as "googling the issue" when it comes to something like this.

> B: doubts

It's weird to doubt something that's been in the news a bunch and is reported on by reputable sources though. Instead of expecting 100 people to do a basic search for them, they should have done their own search and only doubted if they didn't find anything.

You may have read a different comment then. I didn't doubt this claim, I only asked for more information about it. And no, one should never be discouraged from doing so, even if a "basic search" (not exactly well defined either) leads to many results.

This whole "do your own research" attitude is not good. It's easy to make any claim whatsoever without any basis of truth in this manner. Good for you if that is enough for you but for me that is not enough, logically speaking.

Primary sources exist(ed?) on Chinese web, i.e. provincial gov websites advertising these "overseas service centres" used for diaphora services like renew PRC drivers license, which western western MSM regurgitating "Safeguard Defender" propaganda turn into overseas "police stations". Services also entail liasing with PRC law enforcement, i.e. if Chinese tourist gets robbed, they can refer to service centres for guidance, but it's largely PRC public security telling them how to work with local authorities due to language barrier (see drama of Italian police patrolled with Chinese police). These setups exist because PRC tourists/diasphora everywhere now (and thus targetted everywhere), but most places haven't brought up Chinese competency in public services.

Except US, AFAIK no other gov investigating has publically released evidence of foul play. Like there's arguments to close these stations are extra territorial setups, except as far as I'm aware, they're run by diasophra citizens of countries, not Chinese nationals. And LBH, anything pertaining to US actions vs China from last few years is indistinguishable from propaganda. There's some US court docs on the couple Chinese (US citizens) in NY being prosecuted for repressing dissidents on behalf of PRC gov, that's as close to primary source as you can get. This all without touching the founder of SafeGuard Defender, Peter Dahlin... history with PRC, first westerner to be charged for work undermining national security afer NGO reforms, arrested for a few weeks, deported, seperated from Chinese gf). Let's just say he's got bones to pick.

IMO accusations are borderline retarded, and unsurprisingly borderline retarded western msm and useful idiots in west believe it. Spend half a second thinking why PRC intelligence operations would coordinate under very public (and publically advertised) arrangements that gets comingled with civil activities. It's dumbest possible "front" to host these activities, especially for operation foxhunt tier work. Like Chinese spies, especially those with foreign citizenship,can get all sorts of cover work that doesn't directly linked back to official Chinese gov activities (as in terms of paperwork)... and they choose what, network of borderline extraterritorial consulate service arrangements?

E: The TLDR for me is western (really US led) propaganda associated with broad effort to dismantle PRC's United Front like work abroad, started with Chinese programs at various universities. Because again, Chinese intelligence so stupid and lazy (or bold) that they would setup in actual campuses. Which itself is response to PRC basically destroying US/Western NGO operations in PRC mid 2010s for subversive influence ops. Except Chinese don't really run large think tanks or well resourced NGOs as cover for their intelligence activities aboard. They don't need to, they have diasphora citizens everywhere already integrated. The few comparable arrangments that exist are United Front related setups in the west.

This rings true, except for the part where Western media and police are intelligent or competent enough that you should call it, "propaganda".

Its just racism.

A while back there was a bad arrest of an NYPD officer for working at one of these illegal "police stations."

He was either found innocent or the charges were dropped, which is very rare.

>He’s a tenured professor and already has permanent residency at the very least. He is most likely a US citizen.

The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat.

Can you name one?

Trans people

Gay people

Doctors that provide abortions

Doctors that provide gender affirming care

Students protesting against Israel

Just to name a few

Perhaps my question was unclear. I responded to "Even natural born citizens are now under threat." I asked to name one natural born citizen, not categories of people.

Perhaps, given you provided said categories, you'll be able to drill down and name a natural born citizen from them?

Trump himself has said he wants to end birthright citizenship. EVERYONE in the US is at risk. If you think you're safe, you aren't. This is what fascists do.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...

https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/02/07/breaking-down-trump...

Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move to jus sanguinis as the norm, except in the way that it’s a change from the longstanding way of things in the US. To a European, jus soli seems crazy. Almost as crazy as people using caps in their posts.

I do wonder if you, or anyone, could focus on the question I actually asked instead of different ones they wish to answer.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

I'm sorry that you think your goalposts are the only valid goalposts. I can assure you that the fascists in power don't care about your goalposts. For me the only goalpost that matters is trump trying to remove these protections. If you don't think he'll start removing natural born citizens after asking to do so, then I'm not sure there's anything point continuing this conversation.

The fact that they are even trying to remove the protections that natural born citizens have always had in the US, should ring alarm bells for you, but somehow they are not. Maybe you really aren't familiar with the concept of "First they came for...", but you'll find out how this plays out soon enough.

I asked a straightforward question, à la the Socratic method, in order to allow the one making the claim to justify their position, à la Russell's Teapot. If you were not willing to answer the question from the beginning then you shouldn't be responding to me and wailing about "moving goalposts". My "goalposts" have been consistent since my first question - answer that question, please.

If you wish to make your points without addressing my question then you can simply comment directly on the article or respond to someone else, hopefully with more relevance to their comment than your slightly unhinged responses have had to mine.

>The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat.

This is my original comment. You are moving goalposts where you want them to be. My comment is specifically about how this administration is threatening natural born citizens by trying to remove protections they've always had, and here you are seeming to say they aren't because no natural born citizens have been deported yet. You're simply just being an internet troll.

Using the Socratic method, especially on HN is not “just being an internet troll”.

If you can’t handle simple questions that undermine your claims then make better claims. Also, with your attitude I’m not sure this site is for you. Please refrain from the personal insults, it definitely lowers the overall tone of the board.

Your question did not "undermine my claims" at all. I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier, and as we've already seen, they have been extremely authoritarian and don't care much for laws or rules. If you can't see where this is heading, then you're blind with your head in the sand. Your comment is absolutely a "moving goalposts" troll, and I'm not the only one calling you out on that.

You aren't required to keep feeding the trolls.

Argumentum ad populum, especially on contentious political matters, isn't persuasive. Nor on people who seek to avoid answering simple questions - you could've written "I cannot", or "I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier" and saved yourself the gnashing of teeth and personal insults.

HN needs to add a green ink font.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is enough to see an argument destitute of substance.

For there to be a threat there should be evidence of a threat. Your aspersions, which you are so keen on casting against anyone who doesn't share your views, are not evidence of anything but hyperbole and irrational panic.

If you cannot name a single person who is a natural born citizen that has been deported or has been threatened with deportation - or even anyone in power who has mused for a second upon deporting natural born citizens, via this legal change - then you have nothing.

If someone can show that the legal change you're warning about does not have the consequences you claim, e.g. all of Europe, then you have nothing.

You should get used to answering questions, it'll help you sharpen up your argument, that's why I ask simple questions[1]. Now, *please desist from your blatant and explicit rudeness*.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Socratic-method

> jus soli is rare outside of the Americas,

legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.

Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions.

Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]:

> The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)…

Wikipedia[2] adds:

> The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215)

Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example:

> Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke.

And where do you think they got habeas corpus from?

And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states:

> Jus soli was part of the English common law

I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change.

Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

> Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions

While US law has its roots in English common law, and common law concepts were referenced by the Founding Fathers, it has absolutely no bearing on US constitutional law.

It's interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it.

Jus soli has nothing to do with the US constitution or US laws. Period.

Bare assertion isn't a strong argument, especially when the constitution has been changed several times to add things that could also be said to have "nothing to with the US constitution of US laws". The president wants to change it, maybe it'll happen. Europeans will shrug, they've got their own immigration woes.

Keep moving those goalposts

Wong Kim Ark. Granted, that's old. 1898.

Still, the current administration's renewed call to revoke birthright citizenship was via executive order, promptly blocked by courts. Currently the case seems to rest with the Supreme Court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdnlmgyndo

Very interesting[0]. However, he's not under threat;) so I'm still waiting (and will keep waiting, according to the person I originally asked).

I wonder what the strategy is, given that (in my view) it's unlikely the Supreme Court will agree with the Trump admin. Is it performative or will they use it to pressure legislators, and how do they see a route to winning there?

Still, the Wiki does show that it's certainly arguable, so we'll see.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

> The US govt track record on stuff like this is quite abysmal with several researchers having their career and livelihood destroyed.

specific numbers from wikipedia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative):

250 have been fired, 77 cases opened, 28 prosecutions, 8 got convicted.

Also, I suspect many cases were closed or not pushed because of change in president administration.

Permanent green card residents have been sent to El Salvador prisons without trial in the recent stuff. This incident does say it was with a court behind it though.

The FBI does not deal with immigration action.

Yes it does. It's always had Title 8 authority, and several recent executive orders have directly expressed support for such action.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-authorizes-federal-law-enfo...

https://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/fbi-atlanta-confirms-new...

https://www.wkrg.com/baldwin-county/fbi-immigration-enforcem...

https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/2025/02/27/fbi-arrests-coache...

That's the DHS authorization. It deals with immigration issues as a part of its investigations (for all federal agencies). But immigration action is not its primary role. They won't come looking for you because you broke immigration laws. But they will enforce them if it's found that you broke immigration laws while investigating something unrelated.

Not only is that whole different set of claims from "The FBI does not deal with immigration action," but the new set of claims are also incorrect, which you can see from the links I've already provided.

That's moving the goalposts. You initially stated that they do not deal with immigration action. Now it's that immigration action is not its primary role. Those are mutually exclusive arguments.

You say that like Trump isn't president now. Maybe he said something mean about Elon Musk.

ICE has and is arresting US Citizens

ICE is immune to prosecution for improper behavior so they've dialed that up to 11 this year

Who exactly is going to stop them? Courts just say "don't do that" and they nod

Read the article. It's the FBI in this, not ICE.

Fascism tends to pervert every institution it touches. What the FBI was before 2025 is no longer valid.

FBI is after the fact follow up.

Someone else may be responsible for his disappearance in the first place.

Maybe, maybe not. It does follow a pattern of how FBI handles espionage though. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/spy/spies/fou....