We can already deport people who haven't broken laws. Read the code under "deportable aliens". (You're on a "helping people find primary sources" kick and that's the relevant search term). You can be deported for not reporting a change of address. You can be deported for going on welfare.
Matt, it's your construction of the issue as "free speech or deportation" that is bringing too much in from the Khalil case. Most of the time we're not talking about deportation and people have perfectly free speech.
For many of those affected, we're talking about people on student visas studying. Those people aren't going to have their free speech rights affected. They can say whatever they want, stay here through the time of their visa and say anything they like that whole time. I just reject that we then can't judge them as suitable for citizenship or not. I mean, if they espouse Sharia law, say that we have to lower the age of consent, or otherwise massively disagree with the way we run things, they simply should be part of another society rather than seek to change ours. If they feel a chill on their speech due to having to hide something that is massively at odds with US policy, it's like a potential spouse hiding major facets of their character in order to fool me long enough to get married. We don't belong together.
In terms of Khalil himself, he's not being deported for his speech. He's being deported because the Columbia protests involved signifcant levels of criminal activity and disruption. People were taken hostage. Students were undeniably menaced for their identity (appearance) alone. The whole campus went on hybrid learning and graduation was cancelled. He may be wrongly accused, but this is not about his "speech", it's about the massive impacts of the entire set of protests and how disruptive it all was.
For one thing, let's not confuse convictions with breaking laws. Unfortunately, given that Bragg is the relevant prosecutor for the festivities led by Mahmoud, how can we have any confidence that there was a proper investigation for breach of state and local laws? People took plea deals during the Columbia protest actions and the second encampment was illegal. Illegal actions were captured on camera in the Hamilton Hall takeover, including violent actions, even though because identity was masked we may lack the ability to prosecute. Mahmoud likely used non-protected speech to encourage participation in said illegal encampment and/or the Hamilton Hall takeover, which is itself illegal. It fails the Brandenburg test, given that it was speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” as evidenced by the fact that there was then lawless action taken.
None of which was entered into submissions by the prosecutors. You can’t just deny people’s Constitutional rights based on a ‘vibe’. If the prosecutors have evidence of criminal activity, it would only strengthen their case for deportation to enter it into evidence.
And if you want to start down the path of guilt without evidence, charge or conviction, you’re right back to Adam Schiff territory re: Russiagate (I think Schiff described it as ‘unconvicted co-conspirators’ if memory serves). Spare us 🤦🏻♂️
Bragg being the DA in the region definitely neither was "entered into submissions" by prosecutors nor entered your understanding as you read my points. If it wasn't clear, when Chesa Boudin doesn't prosecute shoplifting, it doesn't mean there was no crime.
Spare me the condescension. My eyes aren’t painted on.
You’re the one making the case for all of these supposed ‘crimes’ being committed, without anyone specifying a charge, offering evidence of any crime, much less a conviction for anything. Just a vague notion of potentially endangering foreign policy according to Rubio. And this is the basis for which a family should be broken up and the permanent resident deported? When no crime has been alleged, much less proven?
We have a moronic Opposition Leader/former Interior Minister here in Australia who wants to amend the Constitution to allow dual nationals to be deported by ministerial fiat. This kind of thing has to be stopped at all costs. There has to be some kind of due process for things pf this seriousness. If not, should we do it to someone you like/approve of? I’m betting the answer is ‘no’.
Spare me the lecture on my Constitution if you have a different one you live under. I appreciate any analyses of our issues or general commentary. You can call out any hypocrisy you see in me, feel free. But I don't care about your opinions on how we should interpret our laws or Constitution, if you're from another country. How foreigners think we ought to operate is literally not relevant to the discussion.
I can't even imagine offering an opinion on how Australia should or shouldn't deport people. I'm aghast at how much of an imposition it would be for me to do so.
"You can call out any hypocrisy you see in me, feel free."
Sure: you're a pro-censorship xenophobe who blames all our problems on "foreigners" instead of the corporate-nationalist clown show you voted for. You probably spent the last four years crying about how the government was censoring you, and now that your asshole is in charge you want that authoritarian boot used against people you don't like. You're just another ignorant bootlicker.
Oh, so you are a woke nitwit (possibly from from another country) who liked it when the US had a non compos mentis president who opened our borders to millions of unvetted foreigners and can't see why anyone would put that at the top of the list of messes we have to clean up after your type got the kind of government you deserved for 4 years - incompetent, authoritarian, censorious, irresponsible, and irrational. If only we could go back to the good old days when the cartels, spies, and terrorists could just take a dip in the Rio Grande to get here.
BTW, we don't blame all our problems on foreigners - it is US citizens who are stupid enough to think like you who are the real cause.
TIL that if one doesn’t like bigoted morons who blame all their problems on foreigners, and who stand by with their dicks in their hands while the Grifter in Chief shreds the Constitution, it makes one a fascist. 😎
Are you retarded? Or did you work to become this stupid?
Why wouldn't you offer an opinion on how other nations operate? I would if I thought they were driving down a hard road to fascism. Allowing ministers--or presidents--to deport citizens by personal fiat is fascism. Australia is wrong to even suggest that. The United States was wrong to dump whozits in a camp in Louisiana with no charges laid, and I'm glad the judge forced a hearing on that issue in New Jersey.
As George Galloway is fond of saying the main supposed left wing Party and the main supposed right wing Party in Australia for the coming Federal Election are two cheeks of the same arse
Actually, there’s a presumption of innocence, an idea that seems to be forgotten. Without it, it would be much more efficient and quick to have a panel pronounce punishment, and forget about quaint ideas like “guilt” or “innocence.”
With “cancellation” and #MeToo, we’ve gone far down that road, with the most recent stage being Biden’s “pardon” of people who were never found guilty of anything. Disturbing that so many now believe in presumption of guilt.
This Mahmoud was "found guilty" on plenty of video. As an alien here on a student visa, he is obviously not a citizen and has no rights that Americans have. My understanding of entering the USA on a student visa is that there are severe restrictions with stated consequences as to what activities are not allowed, such as protesting the US government. He protested very loudly the US government. He should have been gone a long time ago but Biden liked what the guy was saying.
"...he is obviously not a citizen and has no rights that Americans have..."
Non-citizens in this country have many of the constitutional rights that citizens have. And he's a permanent resident alien, which is at the top of the pyramid of non-citizen rights. They can still be deported, but not without due process where they have a chance to defend themselves before an impartial judge or magistrate. This is why it's important to vet people thoroughly *before* they are admitted into the country.
And there’s now speculation that he lied on his visa. Can someone please shed some light on how he was able to,obtain a visa so quickly? I know several people that have been trying for a long time and to no avail.
Thanks for this, and yikes, I can't believe that anyone thinks some random video equates being "found guilty." Actually I can believe it.
When major cities excused rioting, looting, violence and arson because of viral cell phone videos — often edited for maximum outrage, like Jacob Blake — it was a stain on our civilization. Mob justice being used to punish your perceived political enemies is always really bad. Either you believe in due process and free speech or you don't.
Exactly, John. If video is all the proof we need, than the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists should still be in prison. Yet Trump released them on grounds they were unfairly convicted. MAGA can't have it both ways.
There were plenty of individuals convicted that didn’t even enter the capitol. Read story about Matthew Perna. Rebecca Lavrenz, 72, 10 months in jail for a misdemeanor while the Columbia students rioting a taking over buildings get suspended now that fed money rescinded. Don’t give me this due process shit.
Due process is not "shit," it's an important part of the American way. If you were caught in some law enforcement dragnet and disappeared the way this man was, I'd demand due process for you, too.
On J6, only those committing violent felonies, including rioting and insurrection, should have gotten prison terms. Misdemeanor violations should have been fines, period, and not backbreaking ones. I have no idea if Perna and Lavernz were railroaded, if they refused to take a deal, or what.
And the Columbia rioters and takeover artists should have been arrested and charged, not just suspended.
That's all due process, in my book: making sure everyone is treated fairly and actual criminals punished.
That's not a great place to get to. Both parties have been clearly politicizing legal and criminal matters in way that's terrifying. I agree that a lot of people in the Jan. 6th morass were over-charged in a heavy-handed and propagandized manner, and Trump himself was the victim of some obvious, and often clumsy, lawfare.
We have to have the same set of rules for everyone, and if both parties see utilizing the courts, law enforcement and intelligence in a way that suits them, we're in a world of trouble. Courts, intelligence, police, and bureaucracies have to be neutral, work within the interpreted bounds of the law and the constitution, and have a commitment to first principles. If we can't do that, and say "yes, I'm doing it, but ook at what the other guy did," then we have nothing.
He isn’t here on a student visa. He has a green card which provides him most of the guarantees of a citizen. Big difference: Student VISA and green card.
If that's the standard, then the J6'ers should still be in prison. Yet Trump just let every one of them out and declared them unfairly convicted.
If Mahmoud is to be deported--and he might well be worthy of it--then it should be easy for Trump to put him before an immigration judge, show all that video and all the proof they've amassed, and get him deported legally. He is no longer a student visa holder, but a green card holder, which requires a little more proof of his "crimes."
The thing about a "crime" is that is specifically doesn't exist in the US until adjudicated. Your complaint about a crime you believe exists is with the DA.
And the idea that this is viewpoint neutral doesn't pass the laugh test.
The thing is, people here on visas don't have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens have. They're here on sufferance. As Kelly pointed out, they can be deported if they're undesirable. It doesn't require courtroom rules of evidence. In the case of Khalil, he was making trouble and causing mayhem. That's good enough. If he were a citizen, things would be different. But he isn't. He's guest who isn't behaving as a guest should.
Bullshit. Read my comment below. Khalil committed no crime. He had no due process which is afforded to a permanent resident married to an American, automatically having complete rights here, just like you. He was NOT arrested for anything and Columbia loved him as the negotiator he was there for. They caved to Trump. Cowards.
Committed no crime? You either believe he’s a patsy or believe the entirety of America is some sort of impresario for a tiny, insignificant plot of land in the Middle East
I had to go to Google Pro to actually see what encompassed Palestine. I couldn't tell from Google Maps, because, well, it was so small. My eyes aren't what they used to be.
I zeroed in on the coastline as you mentioned. You know what country has their coastline better wired than Palestine? El Salvador! That Who! Go check it out.
My understanding is that he is not a permanent resident, has no green card, only a student visa and he's no longer a student. Sounds like he's here illegally.
He did violate the rights of American citizens who were students and who had paid their tuition and who were not able to attend the classes they paid for. He also lied upon entry to the United States. He does not deserve a trial or any other services a citizen would enjoy.
Due process is not afforded an immigrant being expelled. Due process is provided as a right solely for depriving one of life, liberty, or property.
The Supreme Court explained in Turner v Williams 1904 that evicting an alien without a trial is a power of Congress it can provide for in law. It has. The court further found that the due process clause would kick in if Congress tried to enact a punishment other than ejection. Need a trial to penalize with imprisonment or hard labor.
"Repeated decisions of this Court have determined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States; to prescribe the terms and conditions of which they may come in; to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive
officers; that the deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury have no application."
"We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the
United States can, as a matter of public policy, by Congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons included in such decree, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials."
"But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
I think you are correct legally and that is all we can go on. Feelings and suspicions are irrelevant.
But if you asked me, I think we are being gamed. Ad its been happening on this and so many other things the evidence shows that people don't care anymore. Maybe they should but they don't
Care about what? And who are you talking about? All of those who do not agree with you? Biden's State Department deported people as did Trumps before that, and so on. Why are defending a foreign Hamas operative who violated who lied when he entered the country and who violated the rights of students to attend their classes in peace?
Just like with censoring of people and opinions on social media, the first actions taken are against low-hanging fruit. Then the laws get slowly turned against the rest of us. I guess people never heard or heeded the story about the tent and a camel's nose.
First they came for the serial killers, and I did not speak up because I was not a serial killer. Then they came for the forcible rapists, and I did not speak up because I was not a rapist. Then I spit on the street...
" He may be wrongly accused, but this is not about his "speech", it's about the massive impacts of the entire set of protests and how disruptive it all was." Ahhh...so Biden and Co. were actually right about their insurrection charges and the nation-wide manhunt for people present.
It makes the point. Like the Jan 6 protesters, punishing because of association rather than personal actions - even when you know they may be wrongly accused. Convict this idiot for something other than associating with people who broke the law and then deport. Kick him our of University for breaking an honor code, then deport because his reason for being here is gone. Whatever. But, don't deport based on some nebulous idea of "illegal protest." That's up there with, "spreading propaganda" or "hate speech."
You seem to wrongly assume that I agree with his removal if he is wrongly accused. I am solely explaining what was happening in that context but would not agree with his removal on that basis, which is why I used the word "wrongly".
I agree with his removal on other potential bases.
"Kick him our of University for breaking an honor code, then deport because his reason for being here is gone." -- Actually, the reason now is his marriage to a US citizen who's 8 months pregnant with his child.
I know two women married to foreigners that have been waiting for almost two years for their husbands to arrive legally. I told them both over a year ago, they should’ve had them cross the border illegally. They wanted to do it the right way. What a joke!
He was in fact finally suspended but Columbia then did a quick turn around to re-install him as a “negotiator." Foreign students used to add a valuable dimension to education but I'd say they've outlived their usefulness. This all comes down to university idiocy.
Recent revelations that Khalil worked for the British govt, held security clearances etc and that he managed to get a green card in just 2 years makes me highly suspicious. Far more likely he’s a plant. There are likely things we don’t know that the admin knows and can reveal about foreign infiltration and color revolution tactics. My dislike/distrust of govt usually creates a bias in which I immediately suspect own govt of shenanigans but it would be stupid of me to think it is the only one behind them.
I don't think he's a plant specifically - but there is recent reporting that he has had tremendous support from a pro-Palestine lobby that includes highly influential Columbia alums who have helped him (at least one was said to have themselves taken over Hamilton Hall in their undergrad years for a different protest lol). Nothing wrong with that, but it could explain having the connections to get immigration results faster than most.
May I make a modest proposal? When you don't have anything to say on the issues, try just attacking the person! It makes you look really good and you're sure to carry any argument. I'm convinced!
I have been to all inhabited continents and lived extended periods in four of them, various countries. The ONE rule in them all is that their politics was none of my business. Pretty simple. When you are a guest, you act like a guest.
When you have guests, you might consider being hospitable, and following house rules like the constitution, which grants due process to everyone, citizen nor not.
We have free speech and due process here. I have no biz w how another nation runs itself, I am interested in preserving our civil rights, and hope by example, they spread far and wide.
Okay, so we're going to play that game. Let me rephrase then. Are you okay with the 10 to 20 million that poured ILLEGALLY over the border in the last 4 years? Do they have the same free speech rights?
Sort of. When you are arriving you don't get them for merely stepping on the land, but if permitted to enter you are covered, or in theory once you're far enough past the border if you slipped in.
The meaningful things you don't have a claim to until you're considered "past the border entry" point include due process rights and equal protection under the law.
In return for granting the privilege of visitation, we have a right to expect a certain decorum. This includes, at least to me, staying out of our internal politics and not fomenting mayhem.
As an aside, loved the Leningrad reference. Unfortunately it seems we are headed down that path. I never saw that coming.
I asking foreigners not to mask up and call for the annihilation of Jews too prissy for you? If those folks came around to your house with their spray cans, tent encampments, and desire to block your access, would you feel differently?
Ah! Another one that doesn't understand he's putting the entirety of this medium at risk because he likes to call people he disagrees with horrible names.
You are aware that you commited the crime of libel, right? And it's only a set of "training wheels" - you know, for children, children that are learning - called the section 230 exemption that dis-allows Philip from suing you for libel. That exemption is granted, and RESCINDED, at the government's pleasure.
Keep it up. I have a strong suspicion regarding what's going to happen, and I'd like to be proven right.
Tom High - To an earlier comment about 'visitors staying out of our internal politics and not fomenting mayhem' your only reply was an evasive snide remark about decorum.
Signing off by saying 'Grow up, asshole' shows who really needs to grow up. Hint - It's you. A little more decorum, please.
Matt, you should get the bug out of your ass on this topic. You lead with a cheap straw man accusation and then more or less screw up the legal facts involved - this is not in keeping with your usual standards.
If you are focused on the current cause celebre from Columbia, your assumption that he hasn't broken any laws is pretty questionable. Moreover, if your complaint is that he has not been CONVICTED of breaking any laws, for green card holders, conviction is not a legal requirement in all situations and that has been true since at least 1952.
You may disagree with the law and you may disagree with specific State Department decisions about enforcing the law but the Immigration and Nationality Act. gives the State Department the authority to deport even green card holders when they have "reasonable ground to believe that a noncitizen's presence or activities in the country would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." It is also long established legal precedent that non-citizens can be subject to rules that would not be acceptable for citizens.
Argue that the law should be reformed and that would be reasonable. Argue that State Dept is wrong in their assessment of Khalil and you may have a point. However, this is not just deporting people for "no reason" and it is not a 1st Amendment issue.
But betting that Taibbi will continue to have difficulty letting go of defending a terrorist sympathizer here on a visa.
Maybe it’s time MT came out of the closet on the Israel v. Barbarism issue and just admit which side he supports, like Tucker, and Candace and Fuentes etc. have done
Which has nothing to do with my statement you pathetic fascist halfwit.
Noncitizens are subject to different standards that citizens - it is established constitutional law. Legislation gives the State department authority over certain issues regarding noncitizens and State has made its ruling.
I thought you would appreciate this since I found it more recently courtesy of a two week old article on Free Press: Due process is not afforded an immigrant being expelled. Due process is provided as a right solely for depriving one of life, liberty, or property, in accordance with the Constitution. It's so well-established that the Supreme Court was summing it up in reviewing prior sets of decisions 120 years ago.
The Supreme Court explained in Turner v Williams 1904 that evicting an alien without a trial is a power of Congress it can provide for in law. It has, and it's allowed to deport with no trial or typical due process. Detention in the natural course of proceedings to deport is also fine. The court further found that the due process clause would kick in if Congress tried to enact a punishment other than ejection. Need a trial to penalize with imprisonment or hard labor.
Please do name a few. "Serious" here is more ambiguous than whether one guy with a voice can or did incite what he's accused of or whether the organic conditions for collective action were already in place and a random dog bark could have triggered movement.
The reality of this situation is that the legislature gave the State department the authority to make that decision. That said, your naive belief that what happened at Columbia and other universities around the country last year were not organized and incited by outside influencers is something so laughable that it pretty much disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
Matt - I have been a devoted fan for a decade now, but my friendly and humble advice is to reframe any 1A/civil liberties critique of the Trump administration around something besides Israel/Palestine/Hamas. Everyone is so dug in emotionally on this issue one way or the other—in a way that predates and will outlast Trump—that your entreaties to principles are not going to persuade. The comments sections have been a bloodbath of a kind I haven’t seen in years of reading your site. I’ve been saying the Alien Enemies Act is a better place to dig your foxhole. Please! Wartime powers used domestically without judicial oversight —it’s NSA warrantless surveillance all over again. There’s your frame.
Since many don't seem to know this, this isn't solely a speech issue at Columbia and the executive order Trump issued is speaking more to this: without qualification and after extensive investigation, we KNOW that students were menaced and harassed solely for their identity (because of appearance, not beliefs). This is not in question in terms of what went on at Columbia. Crimes were certainly committed.
BTW if you don't follow him check out Dershowitz on Israel. The dude is measured and whip smart on every topic in the world - and then when the topic is Israel, the blinders are applied and he's as myopic as one gets.
Mearsheimer too, but in the opposite direction. He so incisively dissects the Ukraine correctly that it's comical to watch him turn to the Middle East and just suddenly sound like Noam Chomsky's parrot squawking "genocide" over and over.
I have an honest question about this whole issue with Khalil. I watched those "protests" last spring and they broke windows and took over a hall and held some of the custodial staff against their will. And they kept students from going to class. Is not that an issue? Or does such vandalism not matter? Or, perhaps I watched the wrong news and there really was no violence that Khalil was a part of.
I remember that the Summer of Love was described by the Left as "mostly peaceful," and a lot of our citizenry believed that. But it seemed quite violent and destructive and deadly to me. I would appreciate clarification about this. Was that freedom of speech?
I do think that we need to encourage Trump from stepping over lines. It is my belief that so many lines were stepped over when the Left went after him that it may be difficult for him to not do the same.
I always appreciate your perspective, Matt. It keeps me thinking outside my own bubble because I always want to think critically about all of these issues that we are facing. Emotional reactions are sometimes hard to rein in. Thank you.
You are right there was violence. It is in question if Khalil committed crimes though. Nominally, he didnt participate in the Hamilton Hall takeover and only served to negotiate with the authorities for the takeover group.
Separately he served as spokesperson for the encampments but claims not to have violated Columbia policy or the law by not himself camping/overstaying.
He has a legit claim to no lawbreaking. Maybe. Maybe more likely he broke some laws but Columbia and Bragg looked thebother way. Notably, the only people charged in the Hamilton Hall takeover were outside protestors, while all of the actual Columbia students involved were not charged.
But at this point the government has Khalil's emails and knows the extent of his coordination and participation in illegal activities, and we don't.
"But at this point the government has Khalil's emails and knows the extent of his coordination and participation in illegal activities, and we don't."
Then it behooves the government to lay out its case before an immigration judge, present these facts, and deport the man with publicly justified cause. What Trump is doing is the worst of all worlds--deporting someone that even you said might have a legitimate claim to no lawbreaking.
Note that while there are going to be some hearings here, well-established law allows the Government to deport with no typical judicial proceedings for aliens being denied admission or removed if already in. It's summed up by the Supreme Court in the 1904 Turner v Williams decision as settled already by that point.
Turner v Williams is about deporting illegal aliens, and Mahmoud came here legally. Don't know is T v W applies. But, it doesn't matter--as the overturn of Roe v Wade richly proved, nothing is "settled" law any more because this SCOTUS treats stare decisis as a nuisance, not a practice to which they are bound. If the anti-abortion movement can use that to their advantage to knock down 50 years of "settled" law, so can the rest of us.
I'd love to deport all Hamas supporters like Mahmoud. But this nation doesn't allow deportation by personal whim. We need proof he was an active participant in the attacks on Jewish students at Columbia, not just a spokesman for the umbrella organization that includes anti-Israel groups. Those who protest with words only and not violence should be free to stay in this country if they have a green card, and he does.
Here you go, finally worked it back to the most relevant single case. Deportation is not subject to due process, very explicitly. I doubt current court finds any differently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States
Trying to get to this for all of us! I heard an "expert" lawyer on NPR today who covered all the left's talking points without going into any of this. I remember back in the day when the media would go out of their way to give us all the info we needed as informed citizens. Those days are long gone. I am going to check out the Bari Weiss Honestly podcast with Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law professor, he probably has a useful viewpoint.
The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason often has useful articles on these types of legal issues.
Here's another case Volokh cited. It seems, to me, to also fall on the side of easier deportation with less deference to the 1A. But, all three of the guests on Bari's Honestly podcast said "You can make the argument either way and we won't know until the SC rules"
Yes, this nation does. Becuase it gives the SoS the ability to remove at his or her discretion, solely on the basis of potential damage to foreign policy, in law that will be found to hold by this Supreme Court at this time.
TvW is not required to apply - I'm pointing to the SUMMARY writeup there, not the case itself, read it, they cover a wide set of cases and say this in summary:
"No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
"summary methods" being their final term to cover the lack of a need for "due process" as they covered earlier in the judgment.
Agree. Truly would like to know more. Did he behave like Ray Epps? Did he encourage it? Did he lead it? Was he there? Can find nothing as regards Khalil’s involvement in that. The closest I can find to any information is that Columbia suspended him for 1 day and then reinstated him. No cause cited for either action.
He says he had nothing to do with the Hamilton Hall takeover (which was J6 like and violent and certainly illegal) but then came in to serve as a mediator for both sides, and that Columbia knew that and OK'd it ahead of time, meaning affirmed he wouldn't be punished for trying to help.
He says he didn't participate in the overnight and occupancy part of the quad demonstrations (which are considered illegal protest by half of people and legal, unfairly stopped protest by the other half), just showed up during the day to be heard (which would be legal to all I think), but there he did serve as a leader (though maybe not as a leader of the illegal parts he claims).
Taibbi is right, no one in the gov't has yet said that he committed a crime.
I've followed you for decades now and defending terror organizations is new. You are correct on speech. This man is a criminal. Vandalism, harrasment and threats are NOT free speech. Respectfully, I think you have stubbornly misframed this issue.
can we all just call each other criminals at will now?? Maybe all I have to do is say you committed vandalism and threats... I don't have to have evidence and you don't have your day in court...just a mob in agreement. How does that feel?
See my other reply in this thread, Matt. The difference here is that for the first time in my 10 years of reading you, you’ve run into the buzzsaw that is the Israel/Palestine conflict. People’s feelings about this particular topic above all others are so entrenched and will overshadow any civil liberties argument you try to make. You’re trying to run up Mount Everest.
You mean like people clinging to Free Speech like Odysseus to the mast, when we can erase speech from the conversation and still find reason to deport foreigners on Green Cards who organize pro-terrorist protests that menace Jews, destroy property, and injure staff?
You could get 100 Americans to agree a dog is a dog, but if the dog lives in Gaza or Tel Aviv you would have a melee where 50 would fight to the death over it actually being a cat. Or to keep using illustrations, you’re going to fight the Battle of the Somme if you pick this issue to push hardest on. Not sure if it’s worth it when you have some more open ground to advance on other fronts re: the current admin’s civil liberties record.
It's called religion and respect for others' religion.
Judaism and Christianity were both founded in the Levant and the population of the Levant was 80% Christian at the time Muhammed's followers invaded and conquered the Levant in the 600s. Most of the Jewish population at the time was elsewhere, having fled earlier from Roman rule and other issues.
Again: if there was a crime, you wouldn’t need to use a speech law. This was exactly the case when they used the exact same BS statute (18 USC 241) to go after Trump for J6. There was no incitement so they needed a post-Civil War “conspiracy against rights” concept that made a crime out of subjective opinion…
J6 and people on Green Cards have different rights and responsibilities. Khalil etc are not being deported for speech they are being deported for giving material support to a terror org and for organizing protests that menaced Jews, deprived them of their civil rights, not to mention what they did to the workers there:
Sending donations would be, yes, but is that something Khalil has been credibly accused of? (Being that is an actual crime in this country, I'm going to guess it would have come up by now.)
I'm no expert on visa law, but I don't believe they enjoy the same civil protections that citizens have. The deportation is probably well within the law, although, still not a good look.
From what I have seen, there were crimes. That is the point. I have a friend I trust explicitly who is a professor at a very elite university. He says that Jewish students are truly and justifiably scared to death. That is enough for me. He is actually seeing it. If that is what America is all about, maybe we have a problem.
So, no one should oppose the genocide in Gaza because Jewish students are "truly and justifiably scared to death"? Are we expected to ignore the feelings of the Palestinians as they are being bombed into oblivion?
Hey, how about those students taking their picket signs to a street corner and yelling at passerbys or those in cars? But no, that doesn't terrorize their real prey.
Exactly. Time, place and manner. You can oppose Israel's policies loudly and publicly without focusing undue attention on, menacing, or committing violence against a single individual in the United States for a single second.
Shelley - Well said. Commandeering a campus by sheer force of numbers, breaking into buildings, setting up checkpoints to decide who goes where, are classic Brown Shirt tactics for purposes of physically menacing and intimidating students.
Entirely opposite from a street protest which is staged to influence observers and passersby.
Genocides don’t usually result in the population expanding five fold. What’s your take on the 580,000+ Arab vs Arab deaths in Syria? Crickets probably…
I think there's weight to what you say, but also in the abstract I believe everything I'm posting to apply in other cases as well. I don't have a horse in the middle east.
Me too, in what I’ve said in other posts here. But I’ve never seen so much emotion coming from both sides of an issue as I have this one. No reasoning or amount of abstraction seems to get through.
I have a new logic to territorial battles. They are deeply ingrained and emotional. The middle east is like westward expansion and manifest destiny in the USA. Atrocities both ways and you could argue either case. There's not really an easy right or wrong when it's about territory, I've come to believe. Might makes right in the end, not in that the action is morally right, but that you have a natural right in a terrible sense when no one can physically stop you.
You have already lost it by mischaracterizing your defense of Hamas supporter as a defense of free speech conveniently forgetting that Khalil is merely a visa holder and not a citizen. The green card, as with any visa, can be revoked by the issuing authority for any violation such as actively supporting a designated terror organization spreading their vile hate and propaganda.
The revocation of a visa does NOT necessarily require a crime or criminal conviction.
Whether legal or not, deporting of green card holders for political views is vile imo, even if they "support" "terrorist" organizations. Where exactly will that lead us?
Doesn't the opposite direction lead us directly to greater risk of terrorist attack? If they support terror overseas, chances are higher they would support terrorists here.
Matt, by the way your assertion that there is no crime relies way too heavily on what one junior spokesperson said early on and forgets that they have lots of time to build a case.
Also, revocation of a visa does not necessarily require a crime in every instance
Actively supporting a designated terror organization and spreading their propaganda material (eg. denial of October 7th) and organizing harassment and intimidation of a specific group will likely be all they need to deport Khalil to wherever he came from
Visa holders (yes Green Card is a visa) are granted the visa conditionally and actively supporting a designated terrorist organization, spreading the vile hate and propaganda can become grounds for revocation of the visa. No specific accusation let alone conviction of a Crime is needed then to send back the visa holder to wherever they came from.
Last, other media figures like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes etc make no bones about which side they are on in Israel’s fight against barbarism. About time Taibbi came out of the closet.
Jay - There's no good side on which to be in "Israel's fight against barbarism." What Hamas did was indeed barbaric [1500 Israelis killed] as was Israel's response [35000 Palestinians killed].
The horrific bloodletting elicits strong opinions, but yours is irrelevant and unrelated to Matt's concern about free speech in the US.
A lot of people who don't know the law write things like "actively supporting a designated terrorist organization, spreading the vile hate and propaganda can become grounds for revocation of the visa". If you are someone who does know the law, then please provide a link or at least a reference to which specific law allows for the revocation of a visa for ""actively supporting a designated terrorist organization".
The short answer is yes. Those with a visa or Green Card must behave like guests and not disrespect the State Department. That's part of the deal for being admitted. If you can't abide by good manners, don't come here. You can have opinions, but you cross the line when you choose to get involved. People who violate the guidelines are not arrested and thrown in prison. Rather, they are detained and shown the door. This action doesn't require criminal activity.
Nonsense, and you have no basis for your claim. Permanent resident aliens do not have to "respect the State Department" or any other department, nor do they need to have "good manners". This is America.
Matt, “yes” to your question. We are in a world of asymmetrical conflict, and you are dusting off your Marquis de Queensbury rules for civilized engagement against people who want to destroy everything you hold dear. Our citizens can make the case for different points of view. We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid, genocide and other concerns of theirs. They can return to their countries and lead by example.
"We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid ..."
Then don't admit them. Once they're here, they have many of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. Those rights can't be wished away by the executive, or they're not really rights at all.
Greg - "Then don't admit them" you say. Immigration officials aren't mind readers. Foreigners with ill intentions would naturally conceal such intentions in order to gain legal status into the US. If they are successful in doing so, then it shouldn't be that they are home free forever regardless of subsequent behavior.
Their intentions are still the same as before and when they turn those intentions into actions which would have barred them entry in the first place, it follows that they can legitimately be deported. Essentially, isn't a legal immigrant's status probationary until he acquires full citizenship?
If this is the basis for your argument - he has not broken any laws - your argument fails completely. Khalil has broken laws and the fact that the Manhattan DA refuses to charge and prosecute him does not change that. He is being deported for his actions. Khalil is a guest in the USA and the USA has the right to require him or any other guest who breaks the law and advocates the death and destruction of the USA and its citizens to leave.
“You want to be able to deport people who haven’t broken any laws? “
1. People here on a Visa do Not have all of the same rights and privileges as citizens. And green card is a visa, a resident visa.
2. A visa is a privilege not an entitlement and is granted conditionally. Any violation as determined by the issuing authority - such as active support for America’s enemies/. designated terrorist organizations like Hamas - can and does result in the visa being revoked.
3. Even going with the free speech defense of Khalil that you have been attempting to do for over a week, the First Amendment protection for speech does not provide for harassment intimidation and threats to Jewish students in Columbia and elsewhere.
Or is that the one minority that don’t deserve any protections against the vile hatred spewed by Hamas cheerleaders on our campuses and streets?
I wonder if Russia wish's that they could have gotten rid of Lenin for rabble rousing way back when. Would be a lot different world. But I do really appreciate you asking the questions.
They have broken a law by illegally entering the United States. Their presence alone, without documentation, is enough evidence for deportation, which, by itself, does not deprive them of freedom or property.
While that question sounds reasonable, just push the timeline back a bit and ask, do you mean that all applicants for F-1 student visas should be granted to such applicants unless such persons have been convicted of a crime, under U.S. jurisdiction or a like process, when their only "flaw" on their DS-160 application is that they make a declaration that their only regret about 10/07/2023 is that Hamas only killed 46 Americans?
If you agree that such applications should be rejected, what is special about the passage of time where such sentiments aren't expressed until after they arrive here to go to school?
Matt, I posted on a previous article: I feel for the family involved, HOWEVER, I too am a Visa holder. I am an American Citizen living in a foreign country that enforces its laws. I know of many families that have been deported for violating their Visa. This country I am in enforces the laws for its visas. Why should our country not do the same? I know that while I may be an American Citizen, my American rights do not follow me. I am a guest in this country, just as he is a guest in our country.
You want to be able to deport people who haven’t broken any laws? We need a law that gives us that ability? We managed without it since 1800
We can already deport people who haven't broken laws. Read the code under "deportable aliens". (You're on a "helping people find primary sources" kick and that's the relevant search term). You can be deported for not reporting a change of address. You can be deported for going on welfare.
Matt, it's your construction of the issue as "free speech or deportation" that is bringing too much in from the Khalil case. Most of the time we're not talking about deportation and people have perfectly free speech.
For many of those affected, we're talking about people on student visas studying. Those people aren't going to have their free speech rights affected. They can say whatever they want, stay here through the time of their visa and say anything they like that whole time. I just reject that we then can't judge them as suitable for citizenship or not. I mean, if they espouse Sharia law, say that we have to lower the age of consent, or otherwise massively disagree with the way we run things, they simply should be part of another society rather than seek to change ours. If they feel a chill on their speech due to having to hide something that is massively at odds with US policy, it's like a potential spouse hiding major facets of their character in order to fool me long enough to get married. We don't belong together.
In terms of Khalil himself, he's not being deported for his speech. He's being deported because the Columbia protests involved signifcant levels of criminal activity and disruption. People were taken hostage. Students were undeniably menaced for their identity (appearance) alone. The whole campus went on hybrid learning and graduation was cancelled. He may be wrongly accused, but this is not about his "speech", it's about the massive impacts of the entire set of protests and how disruptive it all was.
For one thing, let's not confuse convictions with breaking laws. Unfortunately, given that Bragg is the relevant prosecutor for the festivities led by Mahmoud, how can we have any confidence that there was a proper investigation for breach of state and local laws? People took plea deals during the Columbia protest actions and the second encampment was illegal. Illegal actions were captured on camera in the Hamilton Hall takeover, including violent actions, even though because identity was masked we may lack the ability to prosecute. Mahmoud likely used non-protected speech to encourage participation in said illegal encampment and/or the Hamilton Hall takeover, which is itself illegal. It fails the Brandenburg test, given that it was speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” as evidenced by the fact that there was then lawless action taken.
None of which was entered into submissions by the prosecutors. You can’t just deny people’s Constitutional rights based on a ‘vibe’. If the prosecutors have evidence of criminal activity, it would only strengthen their case for deportation to enter it into evidence.
And if you want to start down the path of guilt without evidence, charge or conviction, you’re right back to Adam Schiff territory re: Russiagate (I think Schiff described it as ‘unconvicted co-conspirators’ if memory serves). Spare us 🤦🏻♂️
Bragg being the DA in the region definitely neither was "entered into submissions" by prosecutors nor entered your understanding as you read my points. If it wasn't clear, when Chesa Boudin doesn't prosecute shoplifting, it doesn't mean there was no crime.
Spare me the condescension. My eyes aren’t painted on.
You’re the one making the case for all of these supposed ‘crimes’ being committed, without anyone specifying a charge, offering evidence of any crime, much less a conviction for anything. Just a vague notion of potentially endangering foreign policy according to Rubio. And this is the basis for which a family should be broken up and the permanent resident deported? When no crime has been alleged, much less proven?
We have a moronic Opposition Leader/former Interior Minister here in Australia who wants to amend the Constitution to allow dual nationals to be deported by ministerial fiat. This kind of thing has to be stopped at all costs. There has to be some kind of due process for things pf this seriousness. If not, should we do it to someone you like/approve of? I’m betting the answer is ‘no’.
Spare me the lecture on my Constitution if you have a different one you live under. I appreciate any analyses of our issues or general commentary. You can call out any hypocrisy you see in me, feel free. But I don't care about your opinions on how we should interpret our laws or Constitution, if you're from another country. How foreigners think we ought to operate is literally not relevant to the discussion.
I can't even imagine offering an opinion on how Australia should or shouldn't deport people. I'm aghast at how much of an imposition it would be for me to do so.
"You can call out any hypocrisy you see in me, feel free."
Sure: you're a pro-censorship xenophobe who blames all our problems on "foreigners" instead of the corporate-nationalist clown show you voted for. You probably spent the last four years crying about how the government was censoring you, and now that your asshole is in charge you want that authoritarian boot used against people you don't like. You're just another ignorant bootlicker.
Oh, so you are a woke nitwit (possibly from from another country) who liked it when the US had a non compos mentis president who opened our borders to millions of unvetted foreigners and can't see why anyone would put that at the top of the list of messes we have to clean up after your type got the kind of government you deserved for 4 years - incompetent, authoritarian, censorious, irresponsible, and irrational. If only we could go back to the good old days when the cartels, spies, and terrorists could just take a dip in the Rio Grande to get here.
BTW, we don't blame all our problems on foreigners - it is US citizens who are stupid enough to think like you who are the real cause.
You know nothing. Sell your racist garbage somewhere else, dumbshit.
Exactly the brilliant rhetoric we have come to expect from the fascist left.
We are seeing lots of pictures of the cultured progressive elites scratching swastikas, urinating and smearing excrement on teslas..
Mental giants
"Exactly the brilliant rhetoric we have come to expect from the fascist left."
And from the right: "Woke nitwit." "Incompetent." "Stupid enough to think like you."
TIL that if one doesn’t like bigoted morons who blame all their problems on foreigners, and who stand by with their dicks in their hands while the Grifter in Chief shreds the Constitution, it makes one a fascist. 😎
Are you retarded? Or did you work to become this stupid?
Why wouldn't you offer an opinion on how other nations operate? I would if I thought they were driving down a hard road to fascism. Allowing ministers--or presidents--to deport citizens by personal fiat is fascism. Australia is wrong to even suggest that. The United States was wrong to dump whozits in a camp in Louisiana with no charges laid, and I'm glad the judge forced a hearing on that issue in New Jersey.
Spare me the condescension. My eyes aren’t painted on.
One of the best lines I'ver ever read.
Plus you need a man bun with pink hair and be a vegan
???
As George Galloway is fond of saying the main supposed left wing Party and the main supposed right wing Party in Australia for the coming Federal Election are two cheeks of the same arse
So are our two parties here in the States. Both worship the Big Corporate in the center.
Narco Rubio? Is he still there? Check out the history of his brother in law!
Actually, there’s a presumption of innocence, an idea that seems to be forgotten. Without it, it would be much more efficient and quick to have a panel pronounce punishment, and forget about quaint ideas like “guilt” or “innocence.”
With “cancellation” and #MeToo, we’ve gone far down that road, with the most recent stage being Biden’s “pardon” of people who were never found guilty of anything. Disturbing that so many now believe in presumption of guilt.
This Mahmoud was "found guilty" on plenty of video. As an alien here on a student visa, he is obviously not a citizen and has no rights that Americans have. My understanding of entering the USA on a student visa is that there are severe restrictions with stated consequences as to what activities are not allowed, such as protesting the US government. He protested very loudly the US government. He should have been gone a long time ago but Biden liked what the guy was saying.
"...he is obviously not a citizen and has no rights that Americans have..."
Non-citizens in this country have many of the constitutional rights that citizens have. And he's a permanent resident alien, which is at the top of the pyramid of non-citizen rights. They can still be deported, but not without due process where they have a chance to defend themselves before an impartial judge or magistrate. This is why it's important to vet people thoroughly *before* they are admitted into the country.
And there’s now speculation that he lied on his visa. Can someone please shed some light on how he was able to,obtain a visa so quickly? I know several people that have been trying for a long time and to no avail.
Speculation?! That's all the proof I need, he's out of here.
They are not owed due process to have their residency privilege revoked.
"As an alien here on a student visa, he is obviously not a citizen and has no rights that Americans have."
That isn't how the Constitution works. Go read a fucking book instead of trolling the comments.
"He should have been gone a long time ago but Biden liked what the guy was saying."
LOL - yeah, Genocide Joe liked what the anti-Zionism protestor was saying. Time to ask your masters at AIPAC for a new script, asshole.
You can’t be “found guilty” on a video!
Thanks for this, and yikes, I can't believe that anyone thinks some random video equates being "found guilty." Actually I can believe it.
When major cities excused rioting, looting, violence and arson because of viral cell phone videos — often edited for maximum outrage, like Jacob Blake — it was a stain on our civilization. Mob justice being used to punish your perceived political enemies is always really bad. Either you believe in due process and free speech or you don't.
Exactly, John. If video is all the proof we need, than the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists should still be in prison. Yet Trump released them on grounds they were unfairly convicted. MAGA can't have it both ways.
There were plenty of individuals convicted that didn’t even enter the capitol. Read story about Matthew Perna. Rebecca Lavrenz, 72, 10 months in jail for a misdemeanor while the Columbia students rioting a taking over buildings get suspended now that fed money rescinded. Don’t give me this due process shit.
Due process is not "shit," it's an important part of the American way. If you were caught in some law enforcement dragnet and disappeared the way this man was, I'd demand due process for you, too.
On J6, only those committing violent felonies, including rioting and insurrection, should have gotten prison terms. Misdemeanor violations should have been fines, period, and not backbreaking ones. I have no idea if Perna and Lavernz were railroaded, if they refused to take a deal, or what.
And the Columbia rioters and takeover artists should have been arrested and charged, not just suspended.
That's all due process, in my book: making sure everyone is treated fairly and actual criminals punished.
I personally have given up on the whole due process thing. It’s pretty clear to me what side is generally given the benefit of the doubt.
That's not a great place to get to. Both parties have been clearly politicizing legal and criminal matters in way that's terrifying. I agree that a lot of people in the Jan. 6th morass were over-charged in a heavy-handed and propagandized manner, and Trump himself was the victim of some obvious, and often clumsy, lawfare.
We have to have the same set of rules for everyone, and if both parties see utilizing the courts, law enforcement and intelligence in a way that suits them, we're in a world of trouble. Courts, intelligence, police, and bureaucracies have to be neutral, work within the interpreted bounds of the law and the constitution, and have a commitment to first principles. If we can't do that, and say "yes, I'm doing it, but ook at what the other guy did," then we have nothing.
I agree, but it sure looks like we have some problems
He isn’t here on a student visa. He has a green card which provides him most of the guarantees of a citizen. Big difference: Student VISA and green card.
He started with a student visa then got his green card
Most but not all.
The student visa is past tense. He has graduated to a green card.
"Found guilty" on plenty of video.
If that's the standard, then the J6'ers should still be in prison. Yet Trump just let every one of them out and declared them unfairly convicted.
If Mahmoud is to be deported--and he might well be worthy of it--then it should be easy for Trump to put him before an immigration judge, show all that video and all the proof they've amassed, and get him deported legally. He is no longer a student visa holder, but a green card holder, which requires a little more proof of his "crimes."
He may not enjoy the right to a trial. The State Department can and does remove non-citizens for all kinds of reasons.
The thing about a "crime" is that is specifically doesn't exist in the US until adjudicated. Your complaint about a crime you believe exists is with the DA.
And the idea that this is viewpoint neutral doesn't pass the laugh test.
Foreigners are subject to our immigration laws, so not the same Constitutional rights as US citizens.
Non-sequitor.
The thing is, people here on visas don't have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens have. They're here on sufferance. As Kelly pointed out, they can be deported if they're undesirable. It doesn't require courtroom rules of evidence. In the case of Khalil, he was making trouble and causing mayhem. That's good enough. If he were a citizen, things would be different. But he isn't. He's guest who isn't behaving as a guest should.
You can certainly prosecute and convict on circumstantial evidence alone.
Since the Constitution was written. Such ignorance!
You clearly have no clue how the Constitution works. Try visiting a library and making yourself less stupid.
Says another one who has no idea that only citizens enjoy full constitutional rights.
Look up any one of, or ideally all of, the following SCOTUS cases (thanks to Grok for this list):
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Wong Wing v. United States, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Bridges v. Wixon, Plyler v. Doe, and Zadvydas v. Davis.
Note that it's unclear whether the current SCOTUS would consider all or any of these good law.
Bullshit. Read my comment below. Khalil committed no crime. He had no due process which is afforded to a permanent resident married to an American, automatically having complete rights here, just like you. He was NOT arrested for anything and Columbia loved him as the negotiator he was there for. They caved to Trump. Cowards.
Committed no crime? You either believe he’s a patsy or believe the entirety of America is some sort of impresario for a tiny, insignificant plot of land in the Middle East
Bet you wouldn't call it that if it were your country.
Yes, he should've said "insignificant plot of SAND in the Middle East". I'm remembering Sam Kinison's rant on world hunger.
Sam Kinison rode a Firebird to Heaven. R.I.P
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sam+Kinison%27s+rant+on+world+hunger&t=iphone&iax=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DK44DriPrLUk&ia=videos
Doesn’t count if the sand abuts a body of water…Palestine?
I had to go to Google Pro to actually see what encompassed Palestine. I couldn't tell from Google Maps, because, well, it was so small. My eyes aren't what they used to be.
I zeroed in on the coastline as you mentioned. You know what country has their coastline better wired than Palestine? El Salvador! That Who! Go check it out.
My understanding is that he is not a permanent resident, has no green card, only a student visa and he's no longer a student. Sounds like he's here illegally.
He did violate the rights of American citizens who were students and who had paid their tuition and who were not able to attend the classes they paid for. He also lied upon entry to the United States. He does not deserve a trial or any other services a citizen would enjoy.
As a green card holder he does not have all rights same as you and me.
Due process is not afforded an immigrant being expelled. Due process is provided as a right solely for depriving one of life, liberty, or property.
The Supreme Court explained in Turner v Williams 1904 that evicting an alien without a trial is a power of Congress it can provide for in law. It has. The court further found that the due process clause would kick in if Congress tried to enact a punishment other than ejection. Need a trial to penalize with imprisonment or hard labor.
"Repeated decisions of this Court have determined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States; to prescribe the terms and conditions of which they may come in; to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive
officers; that the deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury have no application."
"We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the
United States can, as a matter of public policy, by Congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons included in such decree, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials."
"But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
I think you are correct legally and that is all we can go on. Feelings and suspicions are irrelevant.
But if you asked me, I think we are being gamed. Ad its been happening on this and so many other things the evidence shows that people don't care anymore. Maybe they should but they don't
Care about what? And who are you talking about? All of those who do not agree with you? Biden's State Department deported people as did Trumps before that, and so on. Why are defending a foreign Hamas operative who violated who lied when he entered the country and who violated the rights of students to attend their classes in peace?
Charge him then. I have my suspicions but that is irrelevant.
Neither did Charles Manson.
Just like with censoring of people and opinions on social media, the first actions taken are against low-hanging fruit. Then the laws get slowly turned against the rest of us. I guess people never heard or heeded the story about the tent and a camel's nose.
First they came for the serial killers, and I did not speak up because I was not a serial killer. Then they came for the forcible rapists, and I did not speak up because I was not a rapist. Then I spit on the street...
" He may be wrongly accused, but this is not about his "speech", it's about the massive impacts of the entire set of protests and how disruptive it all was." Ahhh...so Biden and Co. were actually right about their insurrection charges and the nation-wide manhunt for people present.
You literally quoted where I said Khalil may be wrongly accused. You should probably have left that part out for the point you're trying to make.
It makes the point. Like the Jan 6 protesters, punishing because of association rather than personal actions - even when you know they may be wrongly accused. Convict this idiot for something other than associating with people who broke the law and then deport. Kick him our of University for breaking an honor code, then deport because his reason for being here is gone. Whatever. But, don't deport based on some nebulous idea of "illegal protest." That's up there with, "spreading propaganda" or "hate speech."
You seem to wrongly assume that I agree with his removal if he is wrongly accused. I am solely explaining what was happening in that context but would not agree with his removal on that basis, which is why I used the word "wrongly".
I agree with his removal on other potential bases.
"Kick him our of University for breaking an honor code, then deport because his reason for being here is gone." -- Actually, the reason now is his marriage to a US citizen who's 8 months pregnant with his child.
I know two women married to foreigners that have been waiting for almost two years for their husbands to arrive legally. I told them both over a year ago, they should’ve had them cross the border illegally. They wanted to do it the right way. What a joke!
Khalil could have been expelled from Columbia without being charged by a DA, but …
He was in fact finally suspended but Columbia then did a quick turn around to re-install him as a “negotiator." Foreign students used to add a valuable dimension to education but I'd say they've outlived their usefulness. This all comes down to university idiocy.
Recent revelations that Khalil worked for the British govt, held security clearances etc and that he managed to get a green card in just 2 years makes me highly suspicious. Far more likely he’s a plant. There are likely things we don’t know that the admin knows and can reveal about foreign infiltration and color revolution tactics. My dislike/distrust of govt usually creates a bias in which I immediately suspect own govt of shenanigans but it would be stupid of me to think it is the only one behind them.
He apparently also did work for UNRWA, reported by Reuters 22 hours ago.
I don't think he's a plant specifically - but there is recent reporting that he has had tremendous support from a pro-Palestine lobby that includes highly influential Columbia alums who have helped him (at least one was said to have themselves taken over Hamilton Hall in their undergrad years for a different protest lol). Nothing wrong with that, but it could explain having the connections to get immigration results faster than most.
Thank you for your clear statement about this situation.
You're an idiot.
May I make a modest proposal? When you don't have anything to say on the issues, try just attacking the person! It makes you look really good and you're sure to carry any argument. I'm convinced!
It’s the leftist way, they can’t help themselves because they have no ability to debate, no facts to share..just insults. So childish.
I have been to all inhabited continents and lived extended periods in four of them, various countries. The ONE rule in them all is that their politics was none of my business. Pretty simple. When you are a guest, you act like a guest.
I'm old enough to remember when that was a pretty simple rule that everybody followed.
Like going to someone’s home. Or respecting people’s property
When you have guests, you might consider being hospitable, and following house rules like the constitution, which grants due process to everyone, citizen nor not.
Due process before deprivation of life, liberty or property. Not denial of entry, permanent residence, or citizenship.
Just a question. If you travel to Iran, are you going to chant "death to Iran" in the streets?asking for a friend.
We have free speech and due process here. I have no biz w how another nation runs itself, I am interested in preserving our civil rights, and hope by example, they spread far and wide.
Are you okay with the 10 to 20 million that a poured over the border in the last 4 years? Do they have the same free speech rights?
If they're here legally, then yes.
Okay, so we're going to play that game. Let me rephrase then. Are you okay with the 10 to 20 million that poured ILLEGALLY over the border in the last 4 years? Do they have the same free speech rights?
No one's arguing about the rights of ILLEGAL immigrants.
Great! Glad we got that cleared up.
Glenn Greenwald says everyone on US soil is covered by the Constitution.
Sort of. When you are arriving you don't get them for merely stepping on the land, but if permitted to enter you are covered, or in theory once you're far enough past the border if you slipped in.
The meaningful things you don't have a claim to until you're considered "past the border entry" point include due process rights and equal protection under the law.
It’s about respecting others.
While in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Johnny, tell Virg what he's won!
Think you are wrong on this one.
Foreigners are a guest in our home.
In return for granting the privilege of visitation, we have a right to expect a certain decorum. This includes, at least to me, staying out of our internal politics and not fomenting mayhem.
As an aside, loved the Leningrad reference. Unfortunately it seems we are headed down that path. I never saw that coming.
A certain decorum? Is that you, Ann Landers?
I asking foreigners not to mask up and call for the annihilation of Jews too prissy for you? If those folks came around to your house with their spray cans, tent encampments, and desire to block your access, would you feel differently?
Ah! The Nutty Professor weighs in with the Zionist trope festival.
Why didn’t you ask me if those ‘folks’ were beheading babies at my house.
Grow up, asshole.
Ah! Another one that doesn't understand he's putting the entirety of this medium at risk because he likes to call people he disagrees with horrible names.
You are aware that you commited the crime of libel, right? And it's only a set of "training wheels" - you know, for children, children that are learning - called the section 230 exemption that dis-allows Philip from suing you for libel. That exemption is granted, and RESCINDED, at the government's pleasure.
Keep it up. I have a strong suspicion regarding what's going to happen, and I'd like to be proven right.
Please stop the name calling. Thank you.
Yes, all this free speech is getting old.
Tom High - To an earlier comment about 'visitors staying out of our internal politics and not fomenting mayhem' your only reply was an evasive snide remark about decorum.
Signing off by saying 'Grow up, asshole' shows who really needs to grow up. Hint - It's you. A little more decorum, please.
Matt, you should get the bug out of your ass on this topic. You lead with a cheap straw man accusation and then more or less screw up the legal facts involved - this is not in keeping with your usual standards.
If you are focused on the current cause celebre from Columbia, your assumption that he hasn't broken any laws is pretty questionable. Moreover, if your complaint is that he has not been CONVICTED of breaking any laws, for green card holders, conviction is not a legal requirement in all situations and that has been true since at least 1952.
You may disagree with the law and you may disagree with specific State Department decisions about enforcing the law but the Immigration and Nationality Act. gives the State Department the authority to deport even green card holders when they have "reasonable ground to believe that a noncitizen's presence or activities in the country would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." It is also long established legal precedent that non-citizens can be subject to rules that would not be acceptable for citizens.
Argue that the law should be reformed and that would be reasonable. Argue that State Dept is wrong in their assessment of Khalil and you may have a point. However, this is not just deporting people for "no reason" and it is not a 1st Amendment issue.
Perfectly summed up.
But betting that Taibbi will continue to have difficulty letting go of defending a terrorist sympathizer here on a visa.
Maybe it’s time MT came out of the closet on the Israel v. Barbarism issue and just admit which side he supports, like Tucker, and Candace and Fuentes etc. have done
“…your assumption that he hasn't broken any laws is pretty questionable.”
People are innocent until proven guilty in America, you sad racist weasel.
Which has nothing to do with my statement you pathetic fascist halfwit.
Noncitizens are subject to different standards that citizens - it is established constitutional law. Legislation gives the State department authority over certain issues regarding noncitizens and State has made its ruling.
Im sorry sad racist weasel, looks like I left out “illiterate” - my bad.
Or at least it should be like that, but sadly it’s not. I’m sure you would not be saying that if Trump for the defendant
I thought you would appreciate this since I found it more recently courtesy of a two week old article on Free Press: Due process is not afforded an immigrant being expelled. Due process is provided as a right solely for depriving one of life, liberty, or property, in accordance with the Constitution. It's so well-established that the Supreme Court was summing it up in reviewing prior sets of decisions 120 years ago.
The Supreme Court explained in Turner v Williams 1904 that evicting an alien without a trial is a power of Congress it can provide for in law. It has, and it's allowed to deport with no trial or typical due process. Detention in the natural course of proceedings to deport is also fine. The court further found that the due process clause would kick in if Congress tried to enact a punishment other than ejection. Need a trial to penalize with imprisonment or hard labor.
"serious adverse foreign policy consequences."
And you're really buying that?
Please do name a few. "Serious" here is more ambiguous than whether one guy with a voice can or did incite what he's accused of or whether the organic conditions for collective action were already in place and a random dog bark could have triggered movement.
If you believe these ongoing protests were/are organic then I have a bridge to sell you.
I don’t believe I’ve seen an organic protest in the US except maybe Jan 6. Yes, they showed up with Trump hats but…
The reality of this situation is that the legislature gave the State department the authority to make that decision. That said, your naive belief that what happened at Columbia and other universities around the country last year were not organized and incited by outside influencers is something so laughable that it pretty much disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
You are wrong on both statements to Matt on this issue RRDRRD.
You really made a great case in support of your broad pronouncement. Oh, wait...
Matt - I have been a devoted fan for a decade now, but my friendly and humble advice is to reframe any 1A/civil liberties critique of the Trump administration around something besides Israel/Palestine/Hamas. Everyone is so dug in emotionally on this issue one way or the other—in a way that predates and will outlast Trump—that your entreaties to principles are not going to persuade. The comments sections have been a bloodbath of a kind I haven’t seen in years of reading your site. I’ve been saying the Alien Enemies Act is a better place to dig your foxhole. Please! Wartime powers used domestically without judicial oversight —it’s NSA warrantless surveillance all over again. There’s your frame.
Since many don't seem to know this, this isn't solely a speech issue at Columbia and the executive order Trump issued is speaking more to this: without qualification and after extensive investigation, we KNOW that students were menaced and harassed solely for their identity (because of appearance, not beliefs). This is not in question in terms of what went on at Columbia. Crimes were certainly committed.
https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Announcements/Report-2-Task-Force-on-Antisemitism.pdf
Thank you for sharing!
BTW if you don't follow him check out Dershowitz on Israel. The dude is measured and whip smart on every topic in the world - and then when the topic is Israel, the blinders are applied and he's as myopic as one gets.
Mearsheimer too, but in the opposite direction. He so incisively dissects the Ukraine correctly that it's comical to watch him turn to the Middle East and just suddenly sound like Noam Chomsky's parrot squawking "genocide" over and over.
Kelly recommended reading for you is Chris Hedges podcast with a professor at Columbia that knows more than you on this matter.
“Check out Dershowitz on Israel”. “measured and whip smart”
Thanks! I haven’t laughed so hard in weeks!
You are saying what I said.
Dershowitz? Is that the same guy who hung with Epstein?
No, you're thinking of Bill Clinton
Actually, no, I am thinking about Dershowitz and others who were blackmailed by Epstein (and his handlers.)
No shit. Well, since I was criticizing Dershowitz, “good one”?
Patriot Act?! Hello? Oh, I'm talking to myself again ... nevermind.
I have an honest question about this whole issue with Khalil. I watched those "protests" last spring and they broke windows and took over a hall and held some of the custodial staff against their will. And they kept students from going to class. Is not that an issue? Or does such vandalism not matter? Or, perhaps I watched the wrong news and there really was no violence that Khalil was a part of.
I remember that the Summer of Love was described by the Left as "mostly peaceful," and a lot of our citizenry believed that. But it seemed quite violent and destructive and deadly to me. I would appreciate clarification about this. Was that freedom of speech?
I do think that we need to encourage Trump from stepping over lines. It is my belief that so many lines were stepped over when the Left went after him that it may be difficult for him to not do the same.
I always appreciate your perspective, Matt. It keeps me thinking outside my own bubble because I always want to think critically about all of these issues that we are facing. Emotional reactions are sometimes hard to rein in. Thank you.
You are right there was violence. It is in question if Khalil committed crimes though. Nominally, he didnt participate in the Hamilton Hall takeover and only served to negotiate with the authorities for the takeover group.
Separately he served as spokesperson for the encampments but claims not to have violated Columbia policy or the law by not himself camping/overstaying.
He has a legit claim to no lawbreaking. Maybe. Maybe more likely he broke some laws but Columbia and Bragg looked thebother way. Notably, the only people charged in the Hamilton Hall takeover were outside protestors, while all of the actual Columbia students involved were not charged.
But at this point the government has Khalil's emails and knows the extent of his coordination and participation in illegal activities, and we don't.
"But at this point the government has Khalil's emails and knows the extent of his coordination and participation in illegal activities, and we don't."
Then it behooves the government to lay out its case before an immigration judge, present these facts, and deport the man with publicly justified cause. What Trump is doing is the worst of all worlds--deporting someone that even you said might have a legitimate claim to no lawbreaking.
Note that while there are going to be some hearings here, well-established law allows the Government to deport with no typical judicial proceedings for aliens being denied admission or removed if already in. It's summed up by the Supreme Court in the 1904 Turner v Williams decision as settled already by that point.
Turner v Williams is about deporting illegal aliens, and Mahmoud came here legally. Don't know is T v W applies. But, it doesn't matter--as the overturn of Roe v Wade richly proved, nothing is "settled" law any more because this SCOTUS treats stare decisis as a nuisance, not a practice to which they are bound. If the anti-abortion movement can use that to their advantage to knock down 50 years of "settled" law, so can the rest of us.
I'd love to deport all Hamas supporters like Mahmoud. But this nation doesn't allow deportation by personal whim. We need proof he was an active participant in the attacks on Jewish students at Columbia, not just a spokesman for the umbrella organization that includes anti-Israel groups. Those who protest with words only and not violence should be free to stay in this country if they have a green card, and he does.
Here you go, finally worked it back to the most relevant single case. Deportation is not subject to due process, very explicitly. I doubt current court finds any differently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States
Thanks very much for providing the link, Kelly, I appreciate your going out of the way for me. I will read.
Trying to get to this for all of us! I heard an "expert" lawyer on NPR today who covered all the left's talking points without going into any of this. I remember back in the day when the media would go out of their way to give us all the info we needed as informed citizens. Those days are long gone. I am going to check out the Bari Weiss Honestly podcast with Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law professor, he probably has a useful viewpoint.
The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason often has useful articles on these types of legal issues.
Here's another case Volokh cited. It seems, to me, to also fall on the side of easier deportation with less deference to the 1A. But, all three of the guests on Bari's Honestly podcast said "You can make the argument either way and we won't know until the SC rules"
Yes, this nation does. Becuase it gives the SoS the ability to remove at his or her discretion, solely on the basis of potential damage to foreign policy, in law that will be found to hold by this Supreme Court at this time.
TvW is not required to apply - I'm pointing to the SUMMARY writeup there, not the case itself, read it, they cover a wide set of cases and say this in summary:
"No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
"summary methods" being their final term to cover the lack of a need for "due process" as they covered earlier in the judgment.
He hasn't been deported yet, why don't we wait to see how it pans out?
Legal hearings soon to come in NJ.
Agree. Truly would like to know more. Did he behave like Ray Epps? Did he encourage it? Did he lead it? Was he there? Can find nothing as regards Khalil’s involvement in that. The closest I can find to any information is that Columbia suspended him for 1 day and then reinstated him. No cause cited for either action.
He says he had nothing to do with the Hamilton Hall takeover (which was J6 like and violent and certainly illegal) but then came in to serve as a mediator for both sides, and that Columbia knew that and OK'd it ahead of time, meaning affirmed he wouldn't be punished for trying to help.
He says he didn't participate in the overnight and occupancy part of the quad demonstrations (which are considered illegal protest by half of people and legal, unfairly stopped protest by the other half), just showed up during the day to be heard (which would be legal to all I think), but there he did serve as a leader (though maybe not as a leader of the illegal parts he claims).
Taibbi is right, no one in the gov't has yet said that he committed a crime.
You seem to be losing this battle, Taibbi. You need to explain the difference between speech and crime.
If there was a crime we wouldn’t have to deport people for speech. That’s the whole point.
And I’m not going to lose this one. I’ve been saying the same stuff for 30+ years. People listen or don’t, but it’s not like it’s a new issue
who's being deported for speech? no one
I've followed you for decades now and defending terror organizations is new. You are correct on speech. This man is a criminal. Vandalism, harrasment and threats are NOT free speech. Respectfully, I think you have stubbornly misframed this issue.
can we all just call each other criminals at will now?? Maybe all I have to do is say you committed vandalism and threats... I don't have to have evidence and you don't have your day in court...just a mob in agreement. How does that feel?
This isn’t a mob. There’s massive evidence in this case. Either you’re ignorant or making a bad faith argument.
You cannot just say there is "massive evidence" without presenting any. That is a bad faith argument.
See my other reply in this thread, Matt. The difference here is that for the first time in my 10 years of reading you, you’ve run into the buzzsaw that is the Israel/Palestine conflict. People’s feelings about this particular topic above all others are so entrenched and will overshadow any civil liberties argument you try to make. You’re trying to run up Mount Everest.
It is incredible how metallic peoples’ brains become over that issue.
You mean like people clinging to Free Speech like Odysseus to the mast, when we can erase speech from the conversation and still find reason to deport foreigners on Green Cards who organize pro-terrorist protests that menace Jews, destroy property, and injure staff?
You could get 100 Americans to agree a dog is a dog, but if the dog lives in Gaza or Tel Aviv you would have a melee where 50 would fight to the death over it actually being a cat. Or to keep using illustrations, you’re going to fight the Battle of the Somme if you pick this issue to push hardest on. Not sure if it’s worth it when you have some more open ground to advance on other fronts re: the current admin’s civil liberties record.
I've been yelled at by people on both sides for staying neutral on the issue.
Everybody seems to have lost their mind over Israel/Palestine. Because I'm trying to have a Real Life, I refuse to take sides.
It's called religion and respect for others' religion.
Judaism and Christianity were both founded in the Levant and the population of the Levant was 80% Christian at the time Muhammed's followers invaded and conquered the Levant in the 600s. Most of the Jewish population at the time was elsewhere, having fled earlier from Roman rule and other issues.
The real issue is he has run into a buzzsaw where he is wrong. Crimes are crimes and speech is speech.
Again: if there was a crime, you wouldn’t need to use a speech law. This was exactly the case when they used the exact same BS statute (18 USC 241) to go after Trump for J6. There was no incitement so they needed a post-Civil War “conspiracy against rights” concept that made a crime out of subjective opinion…
J6 and people on Green Cards have different rights and responsibilities. Khalil etc are not being deported for speech they are being deported for giving material support to a terror org and for organizing protests that menaced Jews, deprived them of their civil rights, not to mention what they did to the workers there:
https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/civil-rights-enforcement-agency-opens-probe-into-columbia-university-over-janitors-trapped-and-attacked-by-anti-israel-mob/
if they had done this to black people or gay people, the Hamas kids would have been deported years ago.
Are you sure you're using MATERIAL support correctly?
why not?
passing out their propaganda, campaigning on their behalf, sending them donations is MATERIAL support.
Sending donations would be, yes, but is that something Khalil has been credibly accused of? (Being that is an actual crime in this country, I'm going to guess it would have come up by now.)
I'm no expert on visa law, but I don't believe they enjoy the same civil protections that citizens have. The deportation is probably well within the law, although, still not a good look.
For the record, he's a permanent resident via green card, not here on student visa.
From what I have seen, there were crimes. That is the point. I have a friend I trust explicitly who is a professor at a very elite university. He says that Jewish students are truly and justifiably scared to death. That is enough for me. He is actually seeing it. If that is what America is all about, maybe we have a problem.
So, no one should oppose the genocide in Gaza because Jewish students are "truly and justifiably scared to death"? Are we expected to ignore the feelings of the Palestinians as they are being bombed into oblivion?
Hey, how about those students taking their picket signs to a street corner and yelling at passerbys or those in cars? But no, that doesn't terrorize their real prey.
Exactly. Time, place and manner. You can oppose Israel's policies loudly and publicly without focusing undue attention on, menacing, or committing violence against a single individual in the United States for a single second.
Shelley - Well said. Commandeering a campus by sheer force of numbers, breaking into buildings, setting up checkpoints to decide who goes where, are classic Brown Shirt tactics for purposes of physically menacing and intimidating students.
Entirely opposite from a street protest which is staged to influence observers and passersby.
Genocides don’t usually result in the population expanding five fold. What’s your take on the 580,000+ Arab vs Arab deaths in Syria? Crickets probably…
A professor at an elite university, talking about how his "elite" students are" truly and justifiably scared to death".
Do you even live in the real world man?
I think there's weight to what you say, but also in the abstract I believe everything I'm posting to apply in other cases as well. I don't have a horse in the middle east.
Me too, in what I’ve said in other posts here. But I’ve never seen so much emotion coming from both sides of an issue as I have this one. No reasoning or amount of abstraction seems to get through.
I have a new logic to territorial battles. They are deeply ingrained and emotional. The middle east is like westward expansion and manifest destiny in the USA. Atrocities both ways and you could argue either case. There's not really an easy right or wrong when it's about territory, I've come to believe. Might makes right in the end, not in that the action is morally right, but that you have a natural right in a terrible sense when no one can physically stop you.
You have already lost it by mischaracterizing your defense of Hamas supporter as a defense of free speech conveniently forgetting that Khalil is merely a visa holder and not a citizen. The green card, as with any visa, can be revoked by the issuing authority for any violation such as actively supporting a designated terror organization spreading their vile hate and propaganda.
The revocation of a visa does NOT necessarily require a crime or criminal conviction.
Whether legal or not, deporting of green card holders for political views is vile imo, even if they "support" "terrorist" organizations. Where exactly will that lead us?
Doesn't the opposite direction lead us directly to greater risk of terrorist attack? If they support terror overseas, chances are higher they would support terrorists here.
Matt, by the way your assertion that there is no crime relies way too heavily on what one junior spokesperson said early on and forgets that they have lots of time to build a case.
True
Also, revocation of a visa does not necessarily require a crime in every instance
Actively supporting a designated terror organization and spreading their propaganda material (eg. denial of October 7th) and organizing harassment and intimidation of a specific group will likely be all they need to deport Khalil to wherever he came from
See Virg's comment above
This is NOT.a free speech issue.
Visa holders (yes Green Card is a visa) are granted the visa conditionally and actively supporting a designated terrorist organization, spreading the vile hate and propaganda can become grounds for revocation of the visa. No specific accusation let alone conviction of a Crime is needed then to send back the visa holder to wherever they came from.
Last, other media figures like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes etc make no bones about which side they are on in Israel’s fight against barbarism. About time Taibbi came out of the closet.
Jay - There's no good side on which to be in "Israel's fight against barbarism." What Hamas did was indeed barbaric [1500 Israelis killed] as was Israel's response [35000 Palestinians killed].
The horrific bloodletting elicits strong opinions, but yours is irrelevant and unrelated to Matt's concern about free speech in the US.
A lot of people who don't know the law write things like "actively supporting a designated terrorist organization, spreading the vile hate and propaganda can become grounds for revocation of the visa". If you are someone who does know the law, then please provide a link or at least a reference to which specific law allows for the revocation of a visa for ""actively supporting a designated terrorist organization".
Yes.
The short answer is yes. Those with a visa or Green Card must behave like guests and not disrespect the State Department. That's part of the deal for being admitted. If you can't abide by good manners, don't come here. You can have opinions, but you cross the line when you choose to get involved. People who violate the guidelines are not arrested and thrown in prison. Rather, they are detained and shown the door. This action doesn't require criminal activity.
Nonsense, and you have no basis for your claim. Permanent resident aliens do not have to "respect the State Department" or any other department, nor do they need to have "good manners". This is America.
Matt, “yes” to your question. We are in a world of asymmetrical conflict, and you are dusting off your Marquis de Queensbury rules for civilized engagement against people who want to destroy everything you hold dear. Our citizens can make the case for different points of view. We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid, genocide and other concerns of theirs. They can return to their countries and lead by example.
Kahil is not a radical immigrant.
He fits my definition of one.
Your definition sounds shady.
And your asymmetrical conflict justifications sound very Bush administration.
"We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid ..."
Then don't admit them. Once they're here, they have many of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. Those rights can't be wished away by the executive, or they're not really rights at all.
Greg - "Then don't admit them" you say. Immigration officials aren't mind readers. Foreigners with ill intentions would naturally conceal such intentions in order to gain legal status into the US. If they are successful in doing so, then it shouldn't be that they are home free forever regardless of subsequent behavior.
Their intentions are still the same as before and when they turn those intentions into actions which would have barred them entry in the first place, it follows that they can legitimately be deported. Essentially, isn't a legal immigrant's status probationary until he acquires full citizenship?
Agree with “don’t admit them”. I’d like to hear more about what the rights of green card holders are under U.S. law.
When Trump, Lindsay Graham and others kowtow to Netanyahu, aren’t we already destroying everything we hold dear?
"You want to be able to deport people who haven’t broken any laws?"
It happens all of the time, and to people far less odious than your guy Khalil. Again, you do not seem to understand immigration at all.
If this is the basis for your argument - he has not broken any laws - your argument fails completely. Khalil has broken laws and the fact that the Manhattan DA refuses to charge and prosecute him does not change that. He is being deported for his actions. Khalil is a guest in the USA and the USA has the right to require him or any other guest who breaks the law and advocates the death and destruction of the USA and its citizens to leave.
“You want to be able to deport people who haven’t broken any laws? “
1. People here on a Visa do Not have all of the same rights and privileges as citizens. And green card is a visa, a resident visa.
2. A visa is a privilege not an entitlement and is granted conditionally. Any violation as determined by the issuing authority - such as active support for America’s enemies/. designated terrorist organizations like Hamas - can and does result in the visa being revoked.
3. Even going with the free speech defense of Khalil that you have been attempting to do for over a week, the First Amendment protection for speech does not provide for harassment intimidation and threats to Jewish students in Columbia and elsewhere.
Or is that the one minority that don’t deserve any protections against the vile hatred spewed by Hamas cheerleaders on our campuses and streets?
I wonder if Russia wish's that they could have gotten rid of Lenin for rabble rousing way back when. Would be a lot different world. But I do really appreciate you asking the questions.
They have broken a law by illegally entering the United States. Their presence alone, without documentation, is enough evidence for deportation, which, by itself, does not deprive them of freedom or property.
While that question sounds reasonable, just push the timeline back a bit and ask, do you mean that all applicants for F-1 student visas should be granted to such applicants unless such persons have been convicted of a crime, under U.S. jurisdiction or a like process, when their only "flaw" on their DS-160 application is that they make a declaration that their only regret about 10/07/2023 is that Hamas only killed 46 Americans?
If you agree that such applications should be rejected, what is special about the passage of time where such sentiments aren't expressed until after they arrive here to go to school?
Matt, I posted on a previous article: I feel for the family involved, HOWEVER, I too am a Visa holder. I am an American Citizen living in a foreign country that enforces its laws. I know of many families that have been deported for violating their Visa. This country I am in enforces the laws for its visas. Why should our country not do the same? I know that while I may be an American Citizen, my American rights do not follow me. I am a guest in this country, just as he is a guest in our country.