WDSmart

I know it's too much to ask you what those terms are. I don't expect you to know that detail, but if you have any reference sto that, or if you do know or even think you do, please tell me. I'm sure these terms do not include giving up his right to free speech or expressing opinions that challenge the current US policies.

So, IMO, the best anyone could say was that he is ACCUSED of being one of those masked persons who committed crimes and attacked people. So, if he is ACCUSED of that, I say his arrest is okay (if there was a warrant issued), and now he should be tried. If he's found guilty, then it's okay with me that part of his punishment is a cancellation of his visa and deportation. But, if he's not found guilty, all he should be given is an apology and a Green Card.

No, and I couldn't find the details of why he was arrested online, other than being here on a visa, ready to get a Green Card (Permanent Residency), and one of the leaders of a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli movement at his university. It didn't say he broke any laws or physically attacked anyone . I guess from your reply, you can't find any more details on this either.

Yes, I agree, and as long as Trump is president, free speech may indeed become more and more dangerous. 😒

I re-read the article above twice and searched with his name online, and did not see any mention of criminal acts or attacking American (USA) citizens. If you know where there are any documented online, please give me a reference to them.

I agree, he was terrible Of course, as I know you know, I was referring to ICE. What bothers me is not arresting, trying, and eventually deporting criminal aliens. It's arresting (detaining, no warrant?) and deporting them without a trial. And especially, in this case, if the "charges" are only engaging in free speech without breaking any laws or rules.

If you get a fine doesn't it need to be in relation to breaking the law? Honestly, I'm just asking because I don't know how that would be possible without witnesses and based on the testimony of a very shaken and disoriented individual. They could go for driving without due diligence but again, no solid proof so a compromise will probably be sought. I think the license test is a good idea but again, being it's Thailand the test isn't worth a thing. Yes, my understanding of the law, even here in Thailand, is that a "fine" is a monetary punishment for breaking a law. IMO, however, his admission of reaching down (on the floor?) for a water bottle while driving could be considered "reckless driving," which would, again IMO, be breaking the law. I agree that the driving test in Thailand is not very good, but perhaps this driver could be made to take one that is more thorough.

My remarks are embedded in the copy of the comment above...

I recommend fining him because 1) he damaged public property, and 2) the cause of the accident was his improper driving. But, if he gets no fine and just has to pay (or more likely his insurance will have to pay) to restore all the damage, that's okay with me.

Arrest him, try him, and if found guilty, jail him. After his jail sentence has been completed, deport him. 😡

As long as no one else was hurt, I say just fine him. There is no need for jail time. Also, he could be required to take a very complete driving test to verify that he should be able keep his license.

I say arrest him, try him, and if found guilty, put him in jail. Then, if he's here on a visa, deport him.

I mainly use Lazada and Shoppee, and I've never had any trouble with either. I've even returned some items for a full refund. All I ever see of Temu is ads featuring half-naked women in underclothing.

So are most adults I know...

Despicable! 😡

DEI is NOT "antithetical to the principles of meritocracy," a system in which people advance based on their merits or abilities. It IS antithetical to the principles of aristocracy, a system in which people advance based on their status or social position (like White males). Just the opposite is true. If DEI does not continue and prevail, the hydra of White male supremacy will rise again (not that it ever was beheaded entirely).

I agree, but isn't this EXACTLY what the Israelis are doing in Gaza right now? 😮

What I refer to as "positive racism" is discriminating FOR a group that, in the past, has been discriminated AGAINST. I do support that. not only as concerns race, but as concerns all characteristics such as gender, transgender, country of origin (or origin of ancestors), native language, handicapped, physical defects, etc. Affirmative Action was, and DEI is, not "revenge politics," but rather "redemptive social actions." These are used today to help right wrongs of the past. If someone attacks your mother, you should try to find out why they did that and then attempt to correct or at least ameliorate the situation so it will not happen again, whether that is concerning them, your mother, or both. That is the civilized and empathetic approach. I'm disappointed in 2025 people do not want to try to correct the results of discriminatory actions of the past.

Affirmative Action of the past and today's DEI are indeed racist, but they are racist in a positive sense. They are meant to right the wrongs of the negative racist actions of the past. Anyone who supports them is trying to right a past wrong. I'm actually pretty shocked that in 2025, people are prepared to deny the positive rationale behind these programs.

The actions of both the driver and the crowd were appalling.

Thanks for your post, and I agree with the message of your last statement above. I'm a US citizen, and the US has a history different from Great Britain's. I don't know the details there, but in the US, people who were non-White were harshly discriminated against, a discrimination which, although it has lessened, exists even today. DEI and its predecessor, Affirmative Action, were put into place to try to resolve or at least lessen some of the inequities that exist today because of that prior (and in some areas, current) discrimination. In the example given of Yorkshire, with an approximately 25% minority population, DEI and Affirmative action would be used when the workforce of a particular agency or business had a lesser percentage of minorities than that, in an attempt to increase the percentage to something close to that of the local public. But, as I wrote earlier, it should never be used to EXCLUDE an applicant; it would only be used as one of the many factors used when considering the applicant for employment.

I do not support the US making any rulings on anyone for their views, BUT... if there were actual threats involved, I do support rulings in that case.

The US "market" has "plunged" three times now and "surged" twice in the past couple of weeks (as of the time I'm writing this). I'm sure a few people (Trump insiders) have made a lot of money on this. But, of course, that should not be a surprise to anyone. That's what Trump is all about. 😡

This sounds like DEI in the USA, which I firmly support. HOWEVER, no one should be PROHIBITED from applying. Everyone should be allowed to apply, and then, in this case, ethnicity can be one of the factors considered during the hiring process.

No, I've lived in Thailand for over 20 years on an O visa and, at times, have filed for a one-year extension using either marriage or retirement qualifications (I've flipped back and forth several times). I currently have a retirement-based extension. I have never had the problems you've described, although I when getting a one-year extension on my retirement visa, I am asked to provide my Thia wife's ID. I don't know why that is, except that before, I did extend based on marriage requirements. Anyway, everything has gone well. Sorry to hear about your problems. I don't know where you live, but you might want to consider going to a different Immigration Office for your next one-year extension.