By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. federal agents detained Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter after Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked their lawful permanent resident status. The State Department stated Afshar supported Iran’s government and its propaganda, and her husband was also barred from entering the United States. This action occurred as the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran entered its sixth week and follows similar revocations of residency status for the daughter of Iranian politician Ali Larijani.
Read the original article here
The U.S. government has reportedly arrested the niece and grandniece of Qassem Soleimani, a high-ranking Iranian military official assassinated by the U.S. in 2020, after revoking their green cards. This development has sparked considerable discussion and concern, with many questioning the legality and ethical implications of such actions.
It appears that the government’s justification for these arrests centers on the individuals’ alleged ties to Soleimani and their alleged support for the Iranian regime. Reports suggest that one of the individuals, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, had a history of promoting Iranian regime propaganda on social media, celebrating attacks on U.S. service members, and expressing support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization. Her daughter, Sarinasadat Hosseiny, is reportedly implicated in similar activities.
However, the situation is complicated by claims from Soleimani’s actual daughter that these two women have no familial connection to their family and simply share a common surname. This raises serious questions about the accuracy of the U.S. government’s identification of the arrestees and whether the correct individuals were targeted.
The decision to revoke green cards and subsequently arrest individuals, without, it seems, going through standard legal and judicial processes, has drawn criticism. Some have likened this approach to collective punishment or a form of hostage-taking, drawing parallels to the controversial practice of “Sippenhaft” used in Nazi Germany. The idea of arresting individuals based on their familial connections, rather than direct evidence of their own criminal activity, is a deeply concerning prospect for many.
There’s also speculation that these arrests might be intended as leverage, potentially for a prisoner exchange. The possibility that the U.S. is attempting to barter these individuals for a captured American pilot in Iran has been raised, highlighting the complex and often fraught geopolitical dynamics at play. This tactic, if true, is seen by some as a departure from established legal norms and a move towards more Machiavellian foreign policy strategies.
The swiftness of the arrests and the revocation of green cards, seemingly bypassing traditional legal channels, has led to accusations of a “clown car administration” and lawless actions. Critics argue that this approach undermines the principles of due process and the rule of law, suggesting that if the government is willing to overstep its bounds in such a manner, it could set a dangerous precedent for future actions, potentially impacting citizens as well as immigrants.
The very act of revoking legal status and detaining individuals based on their perceived political affiliations or familial ties raises profound concerns about civil liberties and freedom of speech. The argument is made that in a free society, individuals should not be targeted or punished for their political opinions or for the actions of their relatives, unless they themselves are engaged in illegal activities.
Furthermore, the fact that these individuals allegedly held green cards, which represent a form of legal residency, and were allegedly refugees who escaped the Iranian government, makes their situation even more precarious and ethically questionable. Using individuals who have sought refuge in the U.S. as bargaining chips or punishing them for their perceived connections to a hostile regime is seen by many as a betrayal of fundamental humanitarian principles and a failure of the U.S. to uphold its own values.
The swiftness and the nature of these arrests have also led to questions about why these individuals were granted green cards in the first place, especially if they were perceived as supporters of the Iranian regime. This suggests a potential breakdown in vetting processes or a shift in policy and enforcement priorities.
Ultimately, the narrative emerging from these events is one of significant concern regarding due process, potential misidentification, and the use of individuals as political pawns. The actions taken by the U.S. government, as described, appear to be a stark departure from established legal norms and democratic principles, leaving many to ponder the implications for the future of justice and human rights.