They're still doing research, and the funding hasn't completely dried up. But a lot of the people I talked to were international students, and the gallows humor of being deported was palpable. Made a slightly illegal turn in the van? Better make sure the cops didn't see you, or ICE is going to deport you back to where you came from. Hiring is completely frozen, and there is talk of potentially cutting down or "asking" students to graduate early. I overheard one of the professors talking to another about their students who were in limbo because their visas had been cancelled. It's pretty grim.
Weariness
Everything that doesn't fit official government line is an extremism and terrorism. It has been that way in Russia and other authoritarian countries. Looks like that is getting imported into US, and without any tariffs at that. I'm perplexed though why does the US population want it (i live in CA, and that doesn't help understanding the whole US population), especially giving that any of those authoritarian countries is also orders of magnitude worse than US economy-wise (even the economy poster-child China has per capita GDP just 1/7th of that of US).
The same reason the school bully and his entourage wants see your lunch thrown on the ground. It's jealousy, it's tribalism, it's establishment of a power hierarchy. It's evil.
Our country has been taken over by a cult of cruelty and othering.
So they check all your messages at the border? Do they dump your entire phone or what is happening there?
"The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory— in violation of a non-disclosure agreement—something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal.
Any claim that his removal was based on political beliefs is blatantly false."
Not at all, it's much more believable than the original story. Traveling scientists frequently work at national labs.
>It is harder to believe they didn't arrest him for this.
Nondisclosure agreements are civil in nature, not criminal.
Let's not forget that the VP literally admitted to creating fake stories to influence public opinion. At this point, any statement by the administration & people under their control should be taken as evidence to the contrary, unless it's corroborated by outside sources.
Trust the experts.
>Given the well-documented history of lies from the current administration, why should we take a statement from a person under their control as fact?
The past N administrations have well-documented histories of lying.
>Let's not forget that the VP literally admitted to creating fake stories to influence public opinion.
Sounds like exactly what this scientist did.
Well, at least maybe your moral compass needs some calibration? I typically go out of my way to avoid personal attacks here. But it's hard to do so if the reaction to "people get detained and locked up for more than a month with bad medical care" is: "oh great, no more far left".
We not should celebrate a slide into authoritarianism, which always starts with bullying weakly-positioned groups first, but the government has already floated with the idea of deporting Americans (and apparently already deported American kids [1]).
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/27/us/children-us-citizens-d...
I don’t even know where to start with that. Consider whether you have a broken moral compass or something. Consider moving to an actual dictatorship country instead of supporting the introduction of dictatorship in a new country?
Edit: beaten to the “moral compass” thing. Well said, above.
Anecdotally, there was a fascinating divide generated by the media and government to form some level of societal pressure( see 6,7,8,9 ). Granted, shaming and otherwise making life harder for people, who choose not to follow societal dogma is not exactly new ( 1, 2, 3, 10 ), but it has reached much higher levels during covid years ( 4, 5 ) and in some places resulted in involuntary rendition to quarantine camps ( 11, 12 ). And those don't even touch the informal ways people were openly talking about in groups.
[1]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-27/should-d... [2]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9549707/ [3]https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/5/e20220... [4]https://www.wusf.org/health-news-florida/2022-12-27/thousand... [5]https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-why-workers-... [6]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10127050/ [7]https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211209-how-to-talk-to-v... [8]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/12/facebook-... [9]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [10]https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/04/3837965... [11]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285 [12]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-03/camps-open-to-address...
You: Do you actually prefer if people with a different political view than yourself are just… removed? Me: Covid You: Relevance? Me: Links with my commentary showing relevance to 'Do you actually prefer if people with a different political view than yourself are just… removed?' You: Too many links. Also you: Are you saying that refusing to comply with quarantine measures is comparable with expressing a(n) [..] opinion
Fuck man. No. Being quarantined for expressing an opinon is bad. Being deported for having an opinion is bad. Can you see how things can be bad at the same time? Why is that so hard? Because wrong side is having the opinion? Because the opinion you like is being targeted? Be fucking honest for once.
In other words, I am saying what I am saying. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am saying rules apply both ways. I am saying that if you undermine rights at one point, you don't get to whine about undermined rights being undermined further ( doubly so if you cannot understand the connection between the two ) but just not in the direction you wanted.
And I kinda knew this conversation will go that way, but I engaged because I hoped that some of the people learned their lessons. I wrote a meaner version of this post and I removed it for two reasons:
1. HN rules 2. It is pointess. You think that you are not only right, but rigteous.
I (another third party) still don't know what you're trying to say. It seems like you are equating "private citizen physicians not accepting patients who refuse to follow medical advice with respect to vaccinations" with "the government is deporting people with different opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict"? Or generally equating "public health" with "differing opinions"?
I absolutely think they are different. Measles is back now in the US and puts everyone at risk of physical harm, because people have chosen to not get vaccinated without good reason. I don't think that is remotely comparable to differing opinions on the ethical situation between Israel and Palestine.
I think it would be more fruitful if you spend some time refining your message to distill what you're trying to say. Maybe less is more.
Everyone?
Previous infection as well as the vaccine is only 97% effective against future infection, which means a significant amount of people are getting sick despite making the right choice and getting vaccinated. The fringe loonies are ruining things for everyone.
[1]https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/measles/exper...
People were quarantined in order to slow down spread of a disease. When they broke quarantine, they were hunted down and detained because they broke (Australian) quarantine laws. If you can contort yourself into believing any of those cases were about freedom of speech, let me know.
Likewise, laws were passed to mandate vaccines for certain jobs. Some who refused lost their jobs over it. This was not about speech or freedom of opinion. It was about protecting the lives of people they interacted with in their jobs.
As far as I know, millions of people around the world protested in public about the lockdowns, quarantines and other measures. I the US, at least, they were allowed to do that. I know China didn’t permit such protests, but this debate is not about China. You are intentionally conflating freedom of speech and freedom to do various other things, and then accusing me of not debating in good faith.
In the links I so helpfully provided ( I will focus on #8 ), Guardian did note that FB was tasked with combating 'vaccine hesitancy'. And did FB take actions to combat that hesitancy in US? If so, is that censorhip? If so, is it related to speech?
So tell me, what really did happen?
If you want to know what happened at a private tech giant in California, ask someone who works there or an investigative reporter who writes about such things.
I notice that you’re not disputing my claims that nobody in the US was secreted away in a concentration camp over a refusal to vaccinate, or over refusing to comply with quarantine rules. You’re also not disputing that refusing vaccines is not an act of speech.
You’re just trying to exhaust me by throwing a lot of arguments at the wall to see what sticks. It’s not working; you’re not convincing me that the US government under Trump is not breaking new ground by removing people’s rights.
Why indeed? I suppose we will need to do some meta analysis.
Is it because maybe your post attempted to undermine my point by stating:"Really? You’re writing that “Being quarantined for expressing an opinon is bad”, as if that’s a thing that happened."?
<< I notice that you’re not disputing my claims that nobody in the US was secreted away in a concentration camp over a refusal to vaccinate,
Why should I? It is not a claim I made, nor is it my objection. You can have it. Hope you feel more validated.
<< You’re also not disputing that refusing vaccines is not an act of speech.
Amigo. I want you to focus. You are already all over the place and I do not want to distract you with shiny stuff on the horizon. We will get there.
<< you’re not convincing me that the US government under Trump is not breaking new ground by removing people’s rights.
Because, my fake false equivalency buddy, I am not arguing that, despite you clearly trying so very, very hard to impose that framework onto this conversation. You might be trying, so c for effort?
<< If you want to know what happened at a private tech giant in California, ask someone who works there or an investigative reporter who writes about such things.
Hmm. So things only happened if they are investigated by a reporter?
What is the claim or point are you trying to make?
I wrote that this is irrelevant because nobody has been quarantined for expressing an opinion. Then you deny making such a claim.
You’re obviously mostly interested in wasting my time so I’ll disengage from this discussion now.
Do you think that the whole "diversity statement" and DEI shticks were exactly tools of removal of people with different political views from academia?
US academia political activity is what made it attractive target for Trump administration. I'd prefer that it didn't happen or that US didn't have a president willing to destroy the academia, but I'd also prefer that universities would act as non-partisan entities. I think Boaz Barak summarized it well [1]
On a separate note, US searching/detaining/refusing entrance to other countries' nationals happened all the time [2,3,4,5,6,7], I don't think it's newsworthy or should change your position on visiting US.
[1] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/28/barak-harvard-m...
[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/us-entry-horror-...
[3] https://firrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/September-2024_...
[4] https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/three-travelers-...
[5] https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-depo...
[6] https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protec...
[7] https://thepienews.com/indian-government-gives-student-trave...
They also deny visitors visas of academics on the basis of political views.
The UK is objectively worse.
There was no mention of any race being inferior to any other in these posts.
The court guessed that this was the man's true belief. Same with the student that got expelled from the US for implying he supports Hamas.
This is not whataboutism: the original comment I replied to was precisely about Brits being afraid of the US government on free speech.
In European countries like France or Switzerland you get sentenced to prison time for describing someone as "a fat lesbian".
Free Speech is much better in the US.
It's a fact, I'm afraid. Disclaimer: I don't even like the guy, he makes money off conspiracy theories about Jewish people. But it's a fact that he got sentenced to prison for saying a journalist is a fat lesbian.
Normally in European countries, an insult, slander or libel would render a fine only.
I’m not sure it follows from this case that the US has better protections for speech, though. It certainly used to, but the argument being made here is that the Trump administration has reduced free speech protections lately.
It remains a fact that you cannot be deported from most countries (including my home country) for allegedly expressing a particular political opinion, without at least first being put through a legal process to determine that you did in fact express that opinion.
This whole "freedom" thing is what led to Trump administration, which routinely thinks they are above the law, being in power. And if you think its not that bad, just wait till 2028 when Trump will coup the government like he tried in 2020 except this time he will succeed.
People need to be on a tighter leash. And as for who holds the leash, nobody = the leash is the law, and anyone who tries to circumvent it gets punished. Nobody is above it, even if you feel like the law is unfair - work to get the law changed if that is what you want.
I remember the "gays will be in death camps" from reddit.
Now, without Covid, its pretty clear that he basically tanked the economy for no good reason.
People were warning that Trump is going to weaponize the government to go against people opposing him.
He is doing that now.
People were warning that Trump is going to ignore the law and the legal process.
He is certainly doing that now.
People were warning that Trump is going to implement policies based in racism.
He is certainly doing that now.
And we aren't even half a year into his term.
But sure, pick the few points that didn't happen as justification.
I really do wonder what it feels like to live with ideological blinders on sometimes. Must be a nice feeling to live in reality thats probably happier than what actual reality is.
Which is exactly what Trump is ending with DEI ban.
Trump is actually the president that is making institutional racism illegal.
As for racial rules, what you are talking about is really affirmative action, which was ruled unconstitutional in 2023. Through the legal process, most importantly. There are arguments that you can make on both sides, but just so you understand the idea for affirmative action isn't to punish whites, its basically to inject diversity into campuses so people become more homogenius (which is a good thing) and you have things like kids from racially poor communities getting a chance of getting a degree getting a start at building generational wealth. Its been proven many times over that if you prop up the lower class of the population, everyone benefits. While affirmative action isn't the best way of doing this, its far from bad - plenty of studies done on this.
However, Trump is not ending institutional racism, he is basically axing funding for programs in schools that align more politically left with a shotgun approach, not giving a fuck about cutting actual programs that may be of value to society. This is vindictive punishment of a man child that lost in 2020, probably coupled with some racism (because Trump has a record of being racist against black people)
Whether the goal of those rules is to "inject diversity" or not does not change the racial hierarchy.
For example: the Canadian woman who was detained at the border. Not many people heard that she was working here illegally (self-employed while here under a TN visa that doesn't allow that).
Edit: I call it arbitrage because (oversimplifying) they manufacture a product for one hour of labor in one country and sell it for one hour of labor in a different country. It's only viable because it takes advantage of a difference in wages between the labor markets.