Staff Reports
In a turn of events that once again places the judiciary under the spotlight, an Obama-appointed judge is poised to rule on yet another controversial case: a ban on visas for foreign students at Harvard University. This all started because Harvard, that bastion of Ivy League snootiness, refused to hand over details about illegal activities by its foreign student body and their potential connections to foreign governments. The Trump administration, citing national security and the need to prevent virulent anti-Semitism—something, shockingly, linked to foreign students at Harvard—decided that hitting pause on issuing visas was a necessary action. One might say they’re working with the modern-day American Dream’s spin, where scrutiny and security take the front seat over unfettered access.
The law, of course, seems to be quite clear on this matter. The power of immigration is firmly placed in the hands of the federal government, which has delegated substantial authority to the executive, namely the president. Under the Immigration Act, the president can refuse entry to any foreign group if deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. So, based on the damning report from Harvard itself, detailing the detrimental conduct occurring within its hallowed halls, the administration decided to act in the name of safety and national security.
But hold your horses; this is a drama ripe with irony and predictable plot twists. It’s no surprise that the judge, known for a track record of rulings against the Trump administration, is expected to once again put a legal stick in the wheels by issuing an injunction. This legal merry-go-round could eventually stop at the Supreme Court, where common sense might finally have a chance to prevail. After all, in a similar case, the highest court found the president firmly within his rights to use his executive powers—a decision this administration hopes to replicate.
However, there’s a snag. The folks behind this legal tango seem content with delaying the administration’s agenda. Dragging their feet, hoping to create as much chaos as possible, only prolongs the inevitable: a Supreme Court review. Although the higher-ups might prefer the case to go through the proper appellate channels, one can’t help but wonder if this rigmarole is an intentional barrier to national security interests.
One aspect remains as clear as a bell: studying in the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. When a university refuses to root out anti-Semitism or hand over information with serious national security implications, it might find itself on the losing end of visa allocations or federal funding benefits. Harvard could have avoided this entire controversy if they simply coughed up the data requested by the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, they’ve opted for a legal showdown, proving once again that, to some, ideology trumps the basic safety and security of their campus community.
