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've been doing this for weeks now and will do it once more, assuming you're not just trolling and are asking in good faith.
Khalil is the recognized spokesman of a group that took over private property, threatened Jewish students and interfered w their civil rights (to attend class), destroyed property and menaced and injured staff.
Here is one of their most recent actions:
"Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the umbrella group that organized protests on campus, posted a video of the action, with the caption: “We disrupted a zionist class, and you should too.”
Four people, their faces shrouded in keffiyehs, burst into his classroom. A protester circled the seminar table, flinging flyers in front of Shilon’s students. One flyer bore an image of a boot stomping on a Star of David; another stated, The Enemy Will Not See Tomorrow."
This is the org he represents! No sane country would allow this and it clearly and explicitly violates the terms of his Green Card, which he knew, which is why he was already lawyered up. (Not to mention that no one would tolerate this behavior if it were aimed at any other minority group.)
He doesn't have to be charged with a crime, as he is not an American citizen. His Green Card can be revoked if he violates its terms, one of which is to obey all laws and not support designated terror orgs.
This is not about speech, it's about behavior and people having to take responsibility for their actions.
The organization he leads, CUAD, had to come out with an apology. One of their other leaders had said that "Zionists don't deserve to live". So they said that was wrong, publicly. But then they thought better of that and issued an apology *to their leader* who had said that. "We're sorry we said that you saying Zionists should die was wrong, bro, our bad!"
Khalil leads this group, and led it through the time in question.
When things get out of hand, you need to remove yourself from them. He never removed himself because he was given an, apparently, false sense of security. He is now finding out.
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".
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've been doing this for weeks now and will do it once more, assuming you're not just trolling and are asking in good faith.
Khalil is the recognized spokesman of a group that took over private property, threatened Jewish students and interfered w their civil rights (to attend class), destroyed property and menaced and injured staff.
Here is one of their most recent actions:
"Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the umbrella group that organized protests on campus, posted a video of the action, with the caption: “We disrupted a zionist class, and you should too.”
Four people, their faces shrouded in keffiyehs, burst into his classroom. A protester circled the seminar table, flinging flyers in front of Shilon’s students. One flyer bore an image of a boot stomping on a Star of David; another stated, The Enemy Will Not See Tomorrow."
This is the org he represents! No sane country would allow this and it clearly and explicitly violates the terms of his Green Card, which he knew, which is why he was already lawyered up. (Not to mention that no one would tolerate this behavior if it were aimed at any other minority group.)
He doesn't have to be charged with a crime, as he is not an American citizen. His Green Card can be revoked if he violates its terms, one of which is to obey all laws and not support designated terror orgs.
This is not about speech, it's about behavior and people having to take responsibility for their actions.
The organization he leads, CUAD, had to come out with an apology. One of their other leaders had said that "Zionists don't deserve to live". So they said that was wrong, publicly. But then they thought better of that and issued an apology *to their leader* who had said that. "We're sorry we said that you saying Zionists should die was wrong, bro, our bad!"
Khalil leads this group, and led it through the time in question.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/10/09/cuad-issues-apology-to-khymani-james-cc-25/
When things get out of hand, you need to remove yourself from them. He never removed himself because he was given an, apparently, false sense of security. He is now finding out.
Still waiting for your description of Khalil’s of “material” support…
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.
Exactly.
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.