"If foreigners are coming here and not going to marches or raising their hands in classroom discussions because they’re afraid of being deported" that's a bad thing according to Matt.
But if we have no standards, then foreigners can be coming here SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies. That's the rub. We need to be able to reject people who don't want to be a *part* of American society, they only want to *CHANGE* American society.
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.
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.
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.
"Constitutional rights" Just when does visa or green card give anyone Constitutional rights? They are here as guest and can be kicked out anytime the Executive Branch decides they are no longer welcome. So "FAFO" applies to just such persons. PERIOD!
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
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.
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.
Ignorant comment . Just because one is in the USA does not mean they are covered by the Constitution. Or given rights that US Citizens have under 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm always on my best (or at least better behavior) when I'm a guest in someone's home or country. If I went into someone else's home and became an activist, being asked to leave wouldn't be rudeness by my host. It would be rudeness (or stupidity) by me. This issue isn't about American citizens and First Amendment Rights that apply to American citizens. I believe that there is a big difference.
Would you be ok if the next democratic administrations decides to deport Ricky Gervais and J K Rowling for their "anti-trans activism"? Or more to the point, if it deports Israeli officials and generals invited to speak at AIPAC?
Honest question, trying to see where the line is drawn.
JK Rowling does not live in the United States. But if either one of them were to lead demonstrations against trans people at Columbia, please let me know.
I dk Nikita, would they be breaking into buildings and holding nontrans people hostage? Are they blocking nontrans from entering buildings they are paying to enter?
Well that is the question isn't it. Or was he safe behind his computer screen direction others? The belief is that he was coordinating the protest actions. Does that make him guilty? Of collusion? I don't know, do you? Were you there?
Then vet them on the way in. Or if their ACTIONS violate American laws.
But the first Amendment prohibits government restrictions of speech, protest, press, etc. And it expressly protects the rights of "the people" to assemble. Folks here on Green Cards get 1st Amendment protections. As do all people: citizens, permanent residents, even visitors.
Again, if we start to be more selective in who we let in, good. Or kick out those who break the law, same. But we're Americans. We protect free speech. It's a natural right and we've proven for 250 years that words don't cause harm.
By that standard, I have to be perfect in vetting when the person is outside the country, and then ignore anything I learn about them subsequently, no matter how bad it is. I reject that standard. What is the point of not simply allowing instant citizenship then as soon as their feet touch the ground? It's fitting and proper to allow us to evaluate them further.
That's not even the standard Mahmoud faces to become a citizen. As a green card holder married to a US citizen, even he has to pass a higher standard to become a citizen.
He must "Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States for at least three years immediately before the date you file Form N-400 and until you take the Oath of Allegiance." And only the Secretary of State determines if the person qualifies for that. We already have laws that fully distinguish non-citizens from citizens, that are just and proper.
No US citizen has to be of good moral character to be a citizen, and Marco Rubio doesn't get to decide anything about them - but current law allows him full power to decide whether anyone meets this standard who wants to be a citizen.
Organizing illegal protest actions and causing massive disruption to a major University campus is not being "well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States".
You’re pretty conveniently focused on one Syrian activist and not the entire body of Americans who have to abide by the same orders or else lose jobs funding etc. And the order forbids legal speech.
In your post the other day you said "forget about Khalil" but then came back to focus on him 2/3 of the way through the piece. It's disingenuous to assert that because I'm citing facts of his relevant contemporary case I'm unable to discuss the issue in the abstract.
You are discussing your whole article. I opened a subtopic solely regarding the quote I cited from you. I'm only talking about the implications of that quote and what my OP says and haven't gone into a broader argument.
So, when you say "entire body of Americans" do you mean "resident non-citizens"? Citizens aren't the group I'm discussing. Among the people I'm discussing, resident aliens, a large segment may not even consider themselves Americans or be planning on moving towards citizenship.
Cardboard signs and tents declared unlawful because genocide funded by taxpayers and humans with a soul is unbearable for many of the guilty and profiteers.
These are pictures of Columbia lawbreaking in the best tradition of American democracy with feet in the street the same way we ended segregation and Vietnam War and saw 1 million in Central Park to oppose nuclear war escalation.. lives matter lawns don't get a flippin soul.
Pamela - I didn't see any "feet in the street." Streets are public places, the same with Central Park. What I saw were the same tactics that Brown Shirts use: commandeering the private grounds of an institution of higher education, destruction of property by breaking and entering, setting up ad hoc check points to demand identification to approve or prohibit the movements of students, all to engender a pervasive, intentional atmosphere of menace and intimidation towards students who don't share the same extreme self righteous views as the occupiers.
And you have the incredible effrontery to say this thuggish display is
"in the best tradition of American democracy." What an utter crock of warped, woke, lefty bull shit!
Professors that may or may not be fair in grading you…not being able to utilize the library that you pay tuition for because as a Jew you’re not safe. All the while these schools offer therapy and safe rooms to help those students handle the election of the President of the US, another constitutional process. So again, so much of this is just bullshit.
Assuming we agree that Rubio's ostensible power to do as you say is a good thing (hint: I don't think it is, and as an American, I think it's a terrible idea), what's the standard?
I mean, are you comfortable -- again, as an American -- allowing one non-elected man, in this case Rubio, to decide which permanent resident rises adequately to the level of "person of good moral character" or "well-disposed to the good order and happiness"?
You'll have your own take, but to me that's a nightmare! One individual decides unilaterally who can stay and who can't? With no right to an advocate or any form of due process? That's scary. You sure you want that . . . as an American?
uhh the Secretary of State has had that power for centuries! And we've made it this far.
What sane country prioritizes the "rights" of foreign supporters of terrorists who murder and kidnap Americans over the rights of its own citizens to peaceably attend school?
It would be the same in any country any of us wanted to emigrate to.
By this standard we could allow anyone on earth the privileges of the American legal system, no matter how many murder plots they supported.
"foreign supporters of terrorists who murder and kidnap Americans over the rights of its own citizens to peaceably attend school?"
You've created quite the strawman. And you're also making my point for me:
What does "supporter" mean? Marching? Chanting? Handing out leaflets? Giving money? Where's the line?
How about thinking about support? Or writing an email that ends up discoverable? Again, it's the flimsiness of these lines that are frightening and should give all Americans pause. By your definition, every non-citizen in the country is subject to deportment at the whim of the SoS. That's madness.
for the thousandth time, foreigners here on Green Cards don't have all the same rights as citizens!
Every non-citizen is fine as long as they abide by the terms they agreed to upon arrival, like not offering material support—donations, pamphlets, marches—for terrorist orgs.
"Where's the line?" CUAD, Mahmoud's org, threatened, menaced, and harassed Jewish students, destroyed property, assaulted staff. He was their public spokesman!
Chris Kyle decided on my behalf if foreigners including children lived or died. I'm cool with that.
I'm not cool with Obama killing an American citizen with no due process.
I'm perfectly fine with us killing overseas non-citizen perceived enemies and being wrong sometimes, though I reserve the right to use my vote against those abusing that power.
I am completely not cool with my government surveilling its own citizens, but completely cool and happy to see them surveilling Angela Merkel.
Well, what was your opinion of the arrest of Nakoula Bassely who was blamed by Obama Administration for the Benghazi attack. State Department Hillary Clinton
Don't forget "mostly peaceful." Ant modicum credibility suffices to eradicate any evidence to the contrary, regardless of the preponderance. Haven't we being attention!
Oh we’ve done a real good job in vetting haven’t we? I’m willing to bet there are a lot of bad apples that arrived over the past four years, no vetting, no vaccinations of any and now how do we remedy that? Biden administration knew this would happen and here we are. Speaking of free speech…what’s with all the BS regarding Elon? Where’s his freedom?
Mike - "Folks here on Green Cards get 1st Amendment protections. As do all people: citizens, permanent residents, even visitors" you say in a father facile manner. A chapter and verse reference from the Constitution would make that assertion more credible.
Glenn card holders do not have the right to vote , nor serve on juries or work for the government. So there are limits. It’s a path to full citizenship, but you need to behave.
I say it in a "[r]ather facile manner" because nothing more is needed when confronted with simple language. Nor can I cite any chapters, since the entire 1st Amendment is one line. But if it makes you happy, I'll essentially repeat what I said, with a citation supplied. Here's the entire Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You'll see the entire text -- with one exception -- addresses what "Congress" cannot do. Two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence has applied that clause to the executive branch, as well as to the States, the latter via incorporation of the 14th Amendment into the Bill of Rights. Sorry, I'm not gonna cite all those cases "chapter & verse"; you'll have to do your own research.
Now, as to that exception, you'll see that it says "people." Not "citizens," not "property owners," not "everyone except Green Card holders." It says "people." The First Amendment prohibits the government, both federal and state, from preventing free exercise of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition to the government. It's not limited to citizens, nor have courts interpreted it to do so.
Foreigners and non-citizens cannot break our laws, nor do they anywhere near all the rights of Americans. Nor should they!! But they DO get most of the protections of the Bill of Rights, speech and assembly included. As well they should. This is the freakin' United States! We do it better and we should proudly flaunt that fact.
Are you kidding? What foreign students are not raising their hands? Oh, and we don’t want them to not march, right? Because that is the Promise of America. All Protest All The Time. Why are they here — to get their Bitch and Moan Degree? Not everyone (in fact, most people) in America are burdened by the need to make ends meet. Maybe we are too busy to care if somebody who hates us is flown away. Yes, of course. I should be better than that.
When foreigners (like I was when living there for 3 years) break US laws, you can deport them - which was always the case.
What you can’t do is have a Secretary of State deporting someone on the grounds of their protected speech having ‘potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences". Khalil has neither been accused nor charged of committing ANY crime. No evidence was offered.
This speech is expressly protected under your First Amendment for ANYONE in the United States, not just citizens or permanent residents. There are no classes or degrees of civil liberties in your Constitution - something that should be guarded at all costs.
However, you still retain the right to cancel any foreigner’s invitation if they break the law. Nothing has changed. Understand one thing though - what starts with the foreigner, the marginalised, the vulnerable in your society will eventually be forced on YOU. You’re not defending ‘their’ rights, you’re defending your own ✊🏻🙏🏻
As a foreigner married to a US service member, I was a Permanent Resident and subject to all kinds of checks/vetting that most PRs aren’t subjected to.
It always makes me laugh as a former service member myself, that ppl want to bang on about how great our countries are for their freedoms right up to the point that anyone wants to exercise them. Then it’s all, ‘Sit down. Shut up and colour.’
Of course, on whose behalf this suppression of civil liberties (constitutionally-guaranteed and otherwise) in our two countries is being carried out, is assiduously elided because in Matt’s words, it ‘gives me a headache’. Please.
But Matt was happy to quote the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) as a source for the ‘explosion’ in the incidents of ‘antisemitism’ in Australia, including the one he correctly cited as debunked in this piece.
To put into correct context, every instance of a person legally demonstrating in support of ending the genocide in Palestine was cited as an ‘antisemitic incident’ by ECAJ - including Jewish Australians.
None of this is to deny real antisemitism in the community (Australia or US); however, focusing on legally-protected free speech in support of ending international crimes against humanity allows real nazis to hide in plain sight.
To Matt - Chris Minns nor any other bell-end in Australia or the EU can’t threaten American civil liberties; they couldn’t hit the ground with their hats. American civil liberties are only under assault by other Americans. And they are doing it on behalf of one entity - and it ain’t Chris Minns.
But hey, bugger it, don’t do it for anyone else…do it for yourself. Once the precedent for removing civil liberties is set, it gets rolled out everywhere and to everyone eventually.
If there’s one lesson to be had in all these jurisdictions since 2001, it’s that supporting policies on the basis that it’ll only hurt people you don’t like is about the most shortsighted and self-defeating behaviour you can engage in. Ask the Brexiteers in Britain.
SENATOR Joe Biden (proudly claims he) wrote the Patriot Act in 1995, but it took 9/11 to pass. (Can you plagiarize a plagiarist?)
'National Security", always vaguely defined, trumps Constitutional Rights. As Ben Franklin noted, people who will give up their rights for security deserve neither rights nor security.
To insinuate that some foreigners come to America “SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies” is an inference that is totally devoid of truth or facts. When there is a gross injustice taking place in the world, it is incumbent upon all people, no matter your status, to stand up and make our voices loud and clear that we will not stand idly by and say nothing. I’m an American war veteran, and I strongly believe in freedom of speech, no matter your status.
So you know why each and every person who ever crossed our borders came here? We live in the real world folks. There are all sorts of people, with at least as many reasons.
You misread the point. They mostly don't do that today because they can't get away with it. If they were able to get an initial visa and then never be deported no matter what speech action / protest action they did, foreign governments would plant agents on purpose.
Speech is a right. Continued presence in the USA is not. It is also not a punishment to eject someone from the USA - literally, by the law it is not, because it has been adjudicated to be considered a civil matter. It is not deprivation of life, liberty, or property. It is removal of a privilege to continue to be in the USA. A privilege, not a right. Say what you want, just don't ask to be guaranteed anything when you show us who you are.
I'm an American veteran too who strongly believes in freedom of speech. If you feel it incumbent upon yourself to stand up against injustice anywhere in the world, have at it. That's the courage of your convictions. Making it incumbent upon all people besides yourself to have the courage of your convictions just isn't very realistic.
I have an idea. We could stop funding Israel, and then foreigners wouldn't come here to tell us to stop funding Israel. Also our taxpayer dollars could go toward our own country and its citizens. Seems like an obvious win.
Israel either buys or trades with the US, and the country also provides information to the United States. Furthermore, the US works with the Saudis and other Muslim countries. However, the United States has designated Hamas a terrorist organization. That means that foreigners on green cards cannot come here and promote Hamas.
The protestors are for their own specific schools' disinvestment. Shall we also federally mandate that private entitites can't invest in Israeli companies?
"NO ONE SHALL BUILD A WEBSITE WITH WIX ANYMORE" because Gaza?
What exactly is the threat posed by foreigners "coming here SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies"? I think that whatever threat that might amount to is far, far less of a threat than any measure we might take to fight against it.
1. You really think a person would come all the way to a foreign country (i.e. the USA) to just change its policies?
2. We need every point of view not just what is fed us by, as Seymour Hersh puts it, the "stenographers of the US govt" such as the NY Times. This freedom counters the ignorance and arrogance we have that what we think is always right.
3. Whether there is criminal activity or not, the US govt is saying that the Pres. has the power to deport people if he feels their view undermines our foreing POLICY (not national security.)
4. What Trump et al are doing is not just to deport one person but to intimidate EVERYONE ELSE!!
5. When Trump doesn't like what federal judges are doing he threatens them or his lawyers lie to the judges or claim that the Pres. has the right to ignore them.
6. IMHO if you do not see that Trump is going after an imperial presidency that is superior to the other two branches AND the US Constitution then you will not be rightly alarmed as what is going on. Get past your hate for some people and see what is a greater evil.
1. Terrorists have done it in past, even willing to commit suicide, and spies go to other countries all the time. There is a term for it, foreign agitator"
2.They dont need to be here to hear them and we while criticism from within is unimpeachably desirable. Criticism from those seeking to BECOME citizens still is accepting and inviting foreign meddling in our affairs.
3. He has this power explicitly in current law. It's literally a phrase in the text of the law to deport someone who harms our foreign policy
1. Presidents being approved in a referendum by the voters every four years, attenuates their imperiousness.
2. Most judges are not elected at all and have life tenure, which might or might not be a good idea.
3. Legislating from the bench makes the judiciary more imperial than either of the other two branches.
4. If any one of the branches is to be more imperial than the other two, it could safely be the legislature since the will of the people is expressed most widely and variously through the direct election of 535 members across the country.
Check out my comments on 2018 Taibbi posts! You joined Racket news... I joined the thing that was two iterations before Hate Inc. I don't even remember the name.
So being part of American society is not wanting to change it? Keep in frozen forever? I doubt that anyone would come to the US "solely" to change it. And what if America is trying to change some other part of the world. Should a student from there be detained for objecting to that?
I guess you doubt the 9/11 pilots came here. I expect my country to send agents overseas of course as much as we protect ourselves against them here. How could I object and why would I care if Russia ejects an American for agitating there against Russian interest?
Pilots were here well before 9/11. My friends mom taught at Embry Riddle. They were there. Also FBI agents in different states alerted headquarters in 95 of Visa holders training as pilots. They did nothing.
You're confusing attacks on and within the US with students speaking out against US foreign policy while the narrative is that freedom of speech is what differentiates the US from other countries. That's OK if your happy to acknowledge that the US is just as unfree as other countries.
BackBay - You've touched on the nub of the controversy. If there was a universal agreement about precisely when freedom of speech became activism, and activism became action, the topic would never have even appeared on the radar.
The issue is not freedom of speech. It is action that violates the liberty of another person. That is what all of those students did. The US citizens who violated the rights of their classmates to peaceably attend class should be arrested and tried and punished if they are convicted. We can eject the foreigners who violated our laws and save ourselves the trouble of a trial. The guy was not only not a citizen, he had violated the terms of his presence in the United States. We are not obligated to give him a trial. He has fewer rights. Let him go home and work with Hamas from there.
Remember that civil disobedience is among the most cherished traditions in American political and social life. The country was founded on it. Thoreau, Rosa Parks, MLK, all of them broke the law to make America conform to their vision, not to the status quo.
Civil disobedience is inconvenient; that’s the point. It doesn’t work if we ask them to take a number, sit, and wait politely until they’re called.
Some civil disobedience is unlawful and puts the person at risk of arrest. Sometimes the SACRIFICE is worth it to improve society. Sometimes not. But it is a SACRIFICE. I remember telling a friend that martyrs used to meet bad ends. Now all our martyrs are champions in real time. I think that is not what a "martyr" is.
Once it was "Do the crime, do the time". Now crime is more political, and only successful if the perp gets off with a lenient sentence. I expect Luigi Mangioni to get off. Kevin Klinesmith. Most white-collar criminals, whose actions do more damage to society than someone who robs a bank.
100% this, what Orenv and michael888 say here. If you feel strongly enough about the issue to commit civil disobedience, then you're committing to doing the time - and you should want that because of the attention to your cause you bring.
That's literally the point of civil disobedience, you care enough or believe that the law needs to change, so you break it to make that point. Now people want to register their strong objection by breaking the law, but get off scott free anyway.
Sera, we’re talking about foreigners. We have enough people here breaking laws. We have no duty to import foreign troublemakers who don’t have the guts to live in their own countries.
Civil disobedience usually means passive resistance. There was little passive going on in these street demands. Trying to force views on those around you through demands and disruption of civil liberties is just intimidation through threats. Do it or we will continue to disrupt your daily activities to study, make a living. It is a mob mentality. You can have free speech without creating havoc for the rest of us.
This is not a free speech issue.
In fact I would suggest the opposite the daily threats and interference in the peaceful movements of people on campus and in the surrounding communities is an infringement. Especially egregious as all the hullabaloo was surrounding two other countries, by many foreign students.
Why do you think our own CIA have written strategies to effect a color revolution (create chaos) by whipping up the students in protests.
Like the 51 former intelligence agents declared - this has all the earmarks of foreign interference. Especially when Qatar funds Columbia to the tune of millions.
The guy took a stand and is facing the consequences.
You are responding to an imagined reality. The man did not do the things you describe. You seem to have read a few things written about Khalil in the corporate press and developed a point of view based on lies. Had he done anything illegal he would have been charged with some sort of crime. But he hasn’t been charged with anything. Instead, he was whisked away to a part of the country where right wing judges think as you seem to, and that was a clear indication that the case has no legal merit. That was overruled now. You have the right to say it’s not a free speech issue. But you only get to repeat that false statement because of the First Amendment. Of course it’s a free speech issue, as hordes of legal experts have explained. You make me sad.
This is not a new event. There are 200 year old laws to handle precisely this issue - foreign agitators - and they’ve been tested over and over and they still stand. Of course. Because only a group of idiots would allow people from other nations to advocate the opposite of your official policy.
Sara, How do you feel about this when it applies to abortion clinic buffer zones? Kelly posted Columbia’s report in which hundreds of Jewish students and faculty told of their personal hostile and aggressive experiences during this time on campus.
Matt submitted FIRE’s example of a gazebo being deemed too small for free speech on campus by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that universities need times and places for these protests to occur. These Supreme Court rulings suggest that there are times and places that are inappropriate for free speech protests.
Civil Disobedience often involves arrests as was the case with the encampments at Columbia with the NYPD and in the case of the abortion center buffer zones. Both groups claim to be speaking up for human lives and feel passionate about their cause.
Sera - Well, there's historical civil disobedience and then there's what passes for civil disobedience today. Recruiting Thoreau, Rosa Parks, and MLK into the ranks of those at Columbia is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Rosa Parks did indeed politely take a seat which she know would elicit her inevitable arrest. MLK's inspiration was Gandhi's non violent advocacy, which motivated MLK to face beatings, fire hoses and police dogs, evidencing more courage than the entire Columbia cohort put together. Their stock in trade was a comfortable numerical superiority by which they vandalized, bullied, and intimidated, more cowardly than noble.
Remember that civil disobedience has been suppressed by the American government with extreme prejudice since the first year and the first president.
The country was founded on it. Shays Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, all of them broke the law and were stomped into powder to maintain the status quo.
Civil disobedience is grounds for instant arrest, trial and imprisonment; that’s the point. It doesn’t work if we ask drug dealers, rapists, murderers, rioters to take a number, sit, and wait politely until they’re called,
One of Jefferson's most famous letters was about Shays Rebellion (which put the Jan 6th "Insurrection" to shame; they had guns! Nine people were killed and two executed):
"Can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and always well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "
Deported for "blocking free passage"? Listen to yourself. I genuinely can't tell if some of the commentors in here are being serious or trying to stir up trouble; some of these arguments don't pass the common-sense sniff test from a mile away.
None of the people committing the actual violence against peaceful protesters were arrested or charged. In fact they were allowed to continue the attack. And some were former IDF soldiers. Why have they not been deported? Because the Trump Administration (and Biden's ) fully supports this sort of "free speech".
You're wrong. Actual speech is what is being infringed up here due to the broadness of the language contained in the Alien Enemies Act and Trump's AntiSemitism Awareness Act.
Thank you Matt, for once again standing up for freedom of speech, which is an absolute value that requires reciprocal respect from people on the receiving end. To the nay sayers: being pissed that someone would have the temerity to raise their voice in opposition to US policies and reserving the right to toss their ass outta here looks from my POV like you’d be happy to do it with impunity but are willing to settle for easy targets. It doesn’t just take courage to exercise one’s 1st amendment rights - it takes strength to stand up for them when people you disagree with exercise them as well. If Americans aren’t willing to do that anymore they’re forfeiting the best thing we’ve got - for shame. A lot of people have been willing to stake their lives on it over the last 200+ years, but you can count yourselves out of that number without leaving the comfort of your soapbox. Good job.
Not giving a F about what exactly?? Foreigners leading disruptive illegal protests are a problem. The remedy is pretty easy, which as noted ad nauseum above, is why you are on your best behaviour when you are a GUEST. Turns out that MAYBE this guy is related to a HAMAS player. Maybe fake news, maybe not. Now he claims to be a political prisoner.... when he could be free immediately upon deportation back to his HOME country.
Classic gen X-r here (financially conservative and socially “liberal” although my kids would say I’m socially indifferent ) and I think you are spot on. The founding fathers wanted the Wild West from a free speech perspective and they were right - it’s not the government’s job to keep people from being stupid and we all bear the responsibility of allowing others to speak their minds and put on our big boy / girl pants and respectfully decide whether we agree with them or not. Excellent writing btw. :)
As an Australian, thankyou for covering this. We never have been serious about our freedoms. If you go down a list of the US or British Bill of Rights we have almost none of them left. We have majority decisions in jury trials, routine searches without cause, no freedom of speech, we can be forced to self-incriminate ourselves, no gun rights, etc.
And all sides of politics and all viable minor parties all back this. There is no way out. The Liberals fight with Labor over the credit, as with the disinfo bill which only wasn't passed because the Liberals want the credit for it when they're next in power.
I am with you 100% on speech even for foreigners. Where it crosses the line is action. If Khalil only did speech then we should not deport even if legal. But from everything I have read this was not just about speech.
KDBD, You and many others commenting know nothing about why Mahmoud Khalil was invited to Columbia. He was a negotiator and never once incited any harm to anyone. The University was pleased with his work. Then that august, well respected institution, threw him to the wolves for $400 million and lost their reputation forever.
BTW, when the Supreme Court decided the Nazis could march in Illinois, the many Holocaust survivors who lived there were glad of the decision based on our First Amendment because, as they said, they remembered what Germany was like before the Holocaust. Everyone standing on US soil is protected by the First Amendment, no matter what they say. Period.
There are libel laws and slander laws and people are held accountable for breaking them when it causes harm that's probable. But hate speech is protected. For example, I detest the Jewish racist leadership in Israel and hate the racist leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans. I think the whole world is mad when it doesn't stand together and protest the genocide in Palestine that murders to exterminate anyone in Israel who is not Jewish. Our government thinks Jewish babies are superior to Palestinian babies and Yemeni babies. I think all babies are equal.
BTW, the Bibas mother and children were killed by Israeli bombs over a year ago. When Hamas wanted to send the bodies home, the Jews refused to take them at that time. I've become propaganda proof. So should you. Unfortunately, Americans are the most easily conned people in the world.
In those exact negotiations he threatened the university that events like what happened at Harrison Hall would continue until they gave in to his demands.
Two university employees were assaulted, kidnapped, and held hostage at Harrison Hall.
I stand by my original comment I understand you hate Israel and anyone who supports it. And you don’t think I or anyone commenting here knows Khalil Also the example of free speech you site about the Nazis is quite well known. None of that impacts what I said. If anything it supports why I said the first sentence.
How about a person who comes to the States to advocate for the CCP. All they do is talk about it, and maybe throw parties and have lots of fun. Everyone loves this person. They have lots of friends and those friends talk up how fantastic the CCP is. Everyone on campus loves them because they have great parties and a wonderful Chinese buffet every thursday (followed by a great party). Next thing you know they are advocating for some bill that the CCP likes. And it turns out the CCP is funding all his efforts and paying him a salary. All this person is doing is talking. Is this a problem?
Consider that the CCP probably is bribing (funding) every one of our congress critters. They could give each one $1M and it would only cost $535M. Pennies. Would that be a problem? THIS is why we can deport aliens without due process and they don't have free speech rights.
Oh no, I have imagined your hypothetical worst-case scenario of parties and a buffet! Help! Call the police!
No, that would not be a problem. At all. If China wants to pay people to immigrate here legally and then throw parties and be popular then I guess we'll just have to suffer through it somehow. What a terrible burden for us.
"But what if they bribe senators" well then that would be a whole completely different unrelated thing, wouldn't it?
Remember Chinagate? For "peanuts" in political donations, the CCP received permanent free trade nation status, off-shored jobs and high-end technology; it was critical for lifting 850 million Chinese out of poverty. A handful of Chinese went to jail in the US, but no politicians:
" FBI agent Daniel Wehr told Congress that the first head U.S. attorney in the investigation, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.'"
No, Australia (and particularly the federal Coalition party) makes a big song and dance about shipping *boat* immigrants to offshore detention while ignoring the biggest category of illegal immigrants: people who overstay their visas. It's all so fucking stupid. IMO, a waste of time, money and very limited military resources that we haven't been able to have a sensible conversation about as a nation ever since it was politically weaponised back in the early 2000s. If you say something like that out loud in Australia you will get immediately branded as a limp wristed leftist who wants to give boat people free blow jobs, as opposed to someone who just wants the Government to stop wasting so much fucking money on theatre.
(Much like how during COVID you would be labelled as a right wing extremist if you said out loud that you thought schools should stay open and teachers should grow a fucking pair and shut up.)
Australia is my home and I am an Australian citizen. The only reason I still say I am American is cause every single Australian tells me I am not a ‘real’ Aussie. Thanks God for that !
Frank - Sovereign nations like Australia have no moral or legal obligation to let anyone from outside into the country, but governments of those nations do have a basic obligation for the well-being of their own citizenry.
The most humane and sensible way to ensure the well-being of both native and any new prospective citizens is to limit immigration to no more than can be assimilated culturally and economically. Doing so reduces internal ethnic hatred and resentment instead of promoting them.
Counties like Poland and Hungary have figured this out. Countries like Britain, France, and Germany have not--to their great misfortune. It ain't rocket science; how the hell can they keep ignoring the obvious so much?
Yes and no. Illegal immigrants coming via boat are detained off-shore. It's a fairly cruel detention but the majority of Australians agree with it. I can't see any better alternative myself, so even though I think it's cruel I'm not arguing against it.
However legal immigration is off the charts. The past 2 years we've imported 1+ million immigrants. For a country with a total population of 26 million that's insane. To put it in perspective USA illegal immigration the past 2 years despite being millions of people is only ~1% of the population. Australian immigration was 3.5% of the population.
This rapid immigration has driven up the cost of living, put a huge strain on housing and public services, and there's been a substantial uptick in violent crime and civil unrest. Mostly due to a few groups who refuse to let go of their "old country" baggage. I'm very worried we're going to see a backlash with a nationalist party gaining power.
That's why Premier Minns is defending Hate Speech laws. Because many people are very angry and speaking up against the immigration. This is what he thinks is a way to stop dissent, but in my experience all this does is bottle the anger up until it explodes. Minns is a twit and he's going to make it worse.
Not a big fan Matt of inviting guests to our home only to find out they are encouraging fights to break out. We have plenty of our own s... disturbers and that's plenty, thank you.
I have an idea. We should stop funding Israel. Then foreigners won't come here and tell us to stop funding Israel. Also, we will have more of our taxpayer dollars for our own citizens.
As a proud New South Welshman: Minns and his government suck ass and I was extremely disappointed when the previous state government was thrown out at the last election. Glaringly unlike their *utterly incompetent* federal counterparts, the NSW Coalition got shit done and managed to do it without resorting to a bullshit culture war every five seconds, because they had a mountain of actual policy and infrastructure achievements to point to instead.
So every time the useless cunt opens his mouth nowadays I just yell at my TV. He seems very happy to re run the playbook that the previous NSW Labor government employed: do nothing but make an announcement every ten minutes or so to distract people from the lack of coherent policy and rampant corruption.
I heartily endorse Matt's message. Fuck you, Chris Minns!
I would join you in dishing out “fuck you” if I could figure out how you dudes structure your government. The parliament meetings where everyone yells at each other sure is fun to watch
Ha! It's just one man's opinion, but I just want my governments to get on with the job of running their domain. I look back on ten years of the last NSW state government and I see shit-tons of shiny new train lines that I used to dream about when I was growing up in Western Sydney, a complete reform of the DMV equivalent so it actually works semi-efficiently, and a bunch of new motorways* that let me avoid about 10,000 traffic lights. It is legitimately a total transformation and for the better. I am genuinely mystified how people looked at that and went "Yeah... but why don't we try going back to Labor, who literally have ministers who've gone to prison for corruption since their last term?"
*with eye-watering tolls attached, but you can't have everything i suppose
Conversely, ten years of our last Federal Government is just a non-stop parade of sitting on their hands and doing FUCK ALL while manageable problems became full-blown crises. For instance: they manage the energy grid. Coal-fired power stations are on the way out. None of the energy companies wanted to build a new one. We had three options: build new gas plants, expand renewable energy, or go nuclear. It took them ten years to NEVER MAKE A DECISION and now the whole grid is fucked up because investors didn't know where to put their money. Yet, we're barely three years out from under their staggeringly incompetent regime and the polls are already showing that people are thinking of switching back. Makes we want to gouge my fucking eyeballs out.
"Coal-fired power stations are on the way out. None of the energy companies wanted to build a new one"
Yes.for several reasons you "forgot" to mention...
Expand renewables??? Poes law in action..
Sure if you like mad inflation/intermittent power outages/loss of heavy industry and loss of services...and increase in energy charges..sounds like a brilliant idea..its worked in so many other countries..oh wait..it never has...
1/The coal burning companies have trouble getting loans now from Woke Banks.
What a surprise...
2/Coal burning companies cannot compete with the "profits" of "renewables" due the REC payments.
Renewable Energy Certificates.
The public subsidises multinational companies to produce energy at a $ loss.
Coal supplies grid.Customers pay once.
Solar supplies to grid.Customers pay once.
The solar REC is now traded and when it is finalised the general public pay the solar again.
Solar gets twice the payment of the coal.
Wind supplies once to the grid.Customers pay once
The REC is now traded and when it is finalised the general public pay the wind (again).
If the wind energy is not needed they are told to stop feeding the grid.
A constraint payment is made.
Wind gets paid twice all the time..and sometimes three times.
REC is the sign of a fourth world country that sits on some of the largest deposits of coal and gas in the world...sells it overseas for peanut returns...and destroys their own energy system..
Energy policy in Oz has been a basket case for years and you've done a great job here of outlining why! Untangling all the mess requires political will and the ability to ignore the polls and do what's right by the taxpayers. The federal branch of the Coalition just buckled and did nothing instead. That's my main complaint. Their first budget in 2013 was a blueprint for action*, and they were so stung by the backlash they just trashed it and coasted on fumes.
*Mind you, I thought it was bloody stupid action, but I could at least have respected their commitment to implementing a policy vision.
The reform of the "DMV" and other state services was one of the most astounding things I have ever seen a government accomplish, and with little or no fuss or fanfare. America, which hates big government, but has seemingly thousands of overlapping bureaucracies, would do well to learn from the (was it Baird?) government.
I was living in Melbourne and then Darwin from 2010-2015. When I first came back to Sydney and had to go to Service NSW for the usual administration, I was blown away by how painless it was compared to the old RTA. The Coalition deserved their entire decade in office based on that change alone.
I thought they had just done a typical government waste of money by closing it and repainting and furnishing it. Mind blown when I went in and found courteous smiling helpful staff greeting me, and expeditious and courteous service. For a wider range of services.
If you guys didn’t drive on the wrong side of the road you would be happier. Just wait till you get to USA and start driving. You guys are just like us but with better accents. Come south. We will teach you how to say ya’ll
I'm sure those in favor of the latest insults to civil liberties are telling themselves "It isn't repression when our side does it." I think I've heard this song before.
"Israel/Palestine gives me a headache, so I’m not going to go on about it, but I don’t get it."
Surely there most be some space inside that giant head to realize that Jews are history's scapegoats and are always blamed and vilified for every ill and injustice and for everything from capitalism to imperialism to 9/11 to WW2 and that they have been targeted and menaced in a way we would never accept for any other minority—and not in 1925 but 2025.
Jews are the canary in the coalmine for social breakdown and the first group attacked when people decide that debate is over and it's time to start cracking skulls. You don't get it? Maybe you should commission one of those timelines for the dozens of attacks and atrocities committed in say the last 50 years by countries (China, Russia, Iran etc) that were ignored or contextualized because everyone was busy denouncing the Jewish state for the crime of existing. Or how bout for all the peace offers made to the Palestinians, all of which were rejected?
Nina Jankowicz getting a tweet deleted is a crime and crisis but Jews being threatened and attacked requires context. I guess Never Again always meant that next time we'll make sure the Brownshirts get ACLU representation.
Tom Lehrer lost a court case that cost him $100,000 and apparently ended his performing career. His crime? A blisteringly satirical song against racism, classism and yes, anti-semitism that included the laugh line "and everybody hates the Jews." This was in the context of everybody hating everybody, except during National Brotherhood Week. "Be thankful that it doesn't last all year." To even suggest that that segment of the American population is actually doing pretty well, and that a distant country's people who share a religion and cultural background with them maybe shouldn't be able to do absolutely anything they want to the original inhabitants... is somehow antisemitic.
Thinking that Israel and Jews have a "Forever Preference card" is not only historically and politically inaccurate, it's the opposite of the truth.
Israel was founded by Jews (easily the world's most hated and persecuted minority) who were either escaping Europe's attempt to murder all of them or the Islamic world's expulsion (or worse), returning to their ancient homeland to build their own state, and have offered peace treaties to the Arab remnant we call "Palestinians" from the 1947 UN Partition Plan all the way through to Ohlmert's famous napkin of 2008:
Every one of these peace attempts was rejected without even a counter-offer, because the Palestinian leaders have said clearly and repeatedly that their ultimate goal isn't their own state but the destruction of the Jewish state. (And remember also: when Israel allowed these people free movement into their country, they were met with multiple suicide bombers who murdered somewhere around 1K civilians by blowing themselves up on buses and in crowded restaurants.)
This culminated in the massacre of 10/7, which was cheered on by millions of Leftists and Islamists all across the globe, even before the bodies were buried and well before the IDF entered Gaza.
Israel is easily the world's most vilified state, the focus of more UN denunciations than every other country combined and the focus of multiple NGOs that support and feed their enemies who are somehow history's only third-generation "refugees", and is still surrounded by fanatical theocratic terrorists who want to destroy it.
If this is a "Forever Preference card", I'm sure that Jews and Israelis would be happy to relinquish it.
Before Covid, I used to think of Australia as a mix of California and Texas. Since Covid, it's basically Canada with extra spiders. So, this dude is pretty much par of the course.
Right On, Matt! How do we hold our heads up, saying we are anchored in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution--one that Trump swore to uphold--when he is now kicking it aside? This does not compute. I also am disgusted with my own unwillingness to express my disgust with Trump himself. I have been hoping that I misunderstood him--but I value your perspective and see that Trump's actions are absolutely sending discordant messages to the world. We say one thing but then do the exact opposite. He is beginning to look and sound more like our globalist neighbors. I took this risk with Kennedy hoping that Trump was a better person than I had thought. It appears that he has done many things--I think--are good, but it also appears there are many other things unfolding that I am really concerned about. Am I still glad it was Trump who won? Yes. Absolutely. But I can't let him have a free ride and a free reign to trample our Constitution. If he dishonors this document, he is trash. The whole world is watching and praying that we will uphold the 1st Amendment. Musk has said this is the reason he joined with Trump. Were they both lying? I will go on 'X' and call them to task. They must know that those who put them in office didn't do so to give them carte blanch in doing whatever they felt like on any given day. We have got to demand that Trump stay true to the values he said he stands for--or he is no better than Trudeau, Macron, and all the other lying "pretty boys" who have taken over and taken down their countries.
I’m flattened by the fact even the supposed readers of Racket don’t get this, and are so willing to turn snowflakes and cancel and worse, abuse and imprison people without a criminal charge. It is the height of ahistorical delusional stupidity to imagine that those in power will not turn that power on them. This will not end well, for anyone.
That's the thing. Due process in relation to the deportation of an alien is not the same thing as due process in relation to a crime and imprisonment. The bar is much lower in the first case, which need not involve criminality.
Trump's direction on this subject is wrong. Moving toward creating any "protected class" is an unconstitutional move. The detention and possible deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is based on very similar circumstances to the accusations against Trump in relation to Jan. 6th. The proof didn't exist to jail Trump and, as far as Khalil is concerned, his case depends on proof that his action did lead to criminal conduct. legally, there probably is cause to revoke his green card. Optically, carrying water for AIPAC is a bad look.
"If foreigners are coming here and not going to marches or raising their hands in classroom discussions because they’re afraid of being deported" that's a bad thing according to Matt.
But if we have no standards, then foreigners can be coming here SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies. That's the rub. We need to be able to reject people who don't want to be a *part* of American society, they only want to *CHANGE* American society.
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.
Spare me the condescension. My eyes aren’t painted on.
One of the best lines I'ver ever read.
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
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.
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.
"Constitutional rights" Just when does visa or green card give anyone Constitutional rights? They are here as guest and can be kicked out anytime the Executive Branch decides they are no longer welcome. So "FAFO" applies to just such persons. PERIOD!
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Ignorant comment . Just because one is in the USA does not mean they are covered by the Constitution. Or given rights that US Citizens have under the Constitution.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
The real issue is he has run into a buzzsaw where he is wrong. Crimes are crimes and speech is speech.
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.
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?
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.
I'm always on my best (or at least better behavior) when I'm a guest in someone's home or country. If I went into someone else's home and became an activist, being asked to leave wouldn't be rudeness by my host. It would be rudeness (or stupidity) by me. This issue isn't about American citizens and First Amendment Rights that apply to American citizens. I believe that there is a big difference.
Would you be ok if the next democratic administrations decides to deport Ricky Gervais and J K Rowling for their "anti-trans activism"? Or more to the point, if it deports Israeli officials and generals invited to speak at AIPAC?
Honest question, trying to see where the line is drawn.
JK Rowling does not live in the United States. But if either one of them were to lead demonstrations against trans people at Columbia, please let me know.
So "leading demonstrations" is where you draw the line?
I dk Nikita, would they be breaking into buildings and holding nontrans people hostage? Are they blocking nontrans from entering buildings they are paying to enter?
Those things are all illegal so IF he did them there's grounds for deportation. But he's not been charged with any of that.
Khalil did neither of those things
Well that is the question isn't it. Or was he safe behind his computer screen direction others? The belief is that he was coordinating the protest actions. Does that make him guilty? Of collusion? I don't know, do you? Were you there?
Then vet them on the way in. Or if their ACTIONS violate American laws.
But the first Amendment prohibits government restrictions of speech, protest, press, etc. And it expressly protects the rights of "the people" to assemble. Folks here on Green Cards get 1st Amendment protections. As do all people: citizens, permanent residents, even visitors.
Again, if we start to be more selective in who we let in, good. Or kick out those who break the law, same. But we're Americans. We protect free speech. It's a natural right and we've proven for 250 years that words don't cause harm.
Let's remember that.
By that standard, I have to be perfect in vetting when the person is outside the country, and then ignore anything I learn about them subsequently, no matter how bad it is. I reject that standard. What is the point of not simply allowing instant citizenship then as soon as their feet touch the ground? It's fitting and proper to allow us to evaluate them further.
That's not even the standard Mahmoud faces to become a citizen. As a green card holder married to a US citizen, even he has to pass a higher standard to become a citizen.
He must "Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States for at least three years immediately before the date you file Form N-400 and until you take the Oath of Allegiance." And only the Secretary of State determines if the person qualifies for that. We already have laws that fully distinguish non-citizens from citizens, that are just and proper.
No US citizen has to be of good moral character to be a citizen, and Marco Rubio doesn't get to decide anything about them - but current law allows him full power to decide whether anyone meets this standard who wants to be a citizen.
Organizing illegal protest actions and causing massive disruption to a major University campus is not being "well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States".
You’re pretty conveniently focused on one Syrian activist and not the entire body of Americans who have to abide by the same orders or else lose jobs funding etc. And the order forbids legal speech.
In your post the other day you said "forget about Khalil" but then came back to focus on him 2/3 of the way through the piece. It's disingenuous to assert that because I'm citing facts of his relevant contemporary case I'm unable to discuss the issue in the abstract.
You are discussing your whole article. I opened a subtopic solely regarding the quote I cited from you. I'm only talking about the implications of that quote and what my OP says and haven't gone into a broader argument.
So, when you say "entire body of Americans" do you mean "resident non-citizens"? Citizens aren't the group I'm discussing. Among the people I'm discussing, resident aliens, a large segment may not even consider themselves Americans or be planning on moving towards citizenship.
Well, Matt, I’m glad you said that because you seem to be the one focused on him…
Cardboard signs and tents declared unlawful because genocide funded by taxpayers and humans with a soul is unbearable for many of the guilty and profiteers.
These are pictures of Columbia lawbreaking in the best tradition of American democracy with feet in the street the same way we ended segregation and Vietnam War and saw 1 million in Central Park to oppose nuclear war escalation.. lives matter lawns don't get a flippin soul.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pameladrew/albums/72177720316452968/
Pamela - I didn't see any "feet in the street." Streets are public places, the same with Central Park. What I saw were the same tactics that Brown Shirts use: commandeering the private grounds of an institution of higher education, destruction of property by breaking and entering, setting up ad hoc check points to demand identification to approve or prohibit the movements of students, all to engender a pervasive, intentional atmosphere of menace and intimidation towards students who don't share the same extreme self righteous views as the occupiers.
And you have the incredible effrontery to say this thuggish display is
"in the best tradition of American democracy." What an utter crock of warped, woke, lefty bull shit!
Professors that may or may not be fair in grading you…not being able to utilize the library that you pay tuition for because as a Jew you’re not safe. All the while these schools offer therapy and safe rooms to help those students handle the election of the President of the US, another constitutional process. So again, so much of this is just bullshit.
It’s just you.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/21/episodes-from-the-great-disappearance/
Lots of red herrings in the sea.
Lots of stupid in the cognitive practice of the Zionists.
If true, and not leaving out relevant/significant details, these are very concerning stories.
Assuming we agree that Rubio's ostensible power to do as you say is a good thing (hint: I don't think it is, and as an American, I think it's a terrible idea), what's the standard?
I mean, are you comfortable -- again, as an American -- allowing one non-elected man, in this case Rubio, to decide which permanent resident rises adequately to the level of "person of good moral character" or "well-disposed to the good order and happiness"?
You'll have your own take, but to me that's a nightmare! One individual decides unilaterally who can stay and who can't? With no right to an advocate or any form of due process? That's scary. You sure you want that . . . as an American?
uhh the Secretary of State has had that power for centuries! And we've made it this far.
What sane country prioritizes the "rights" of foreign supporters of terrorists who murder and kidnap Americans over the rights of its own citizens to peaceably attend school?
It would be the same in any country any of us wanted to emigrate to.
By this standard we could allow anyone on earth the privileges of the American legal system, no matter how many murder plots they supported.
"foreign supporters of terrorists who murder and kidnap Americans over the rights of its own citizens to peaceably attend school?"
You've created quite the strawman. And you're also making my point for me:
What does "supporter" mean? Marching? Chanting? Handing out leaflets? Giving money? Where's the line?
How about thinking about support? Or writing an email that ends up discoverable? Again, it's the flimsiness of these lines that are frightening and should give all Americans pause. By your definition, every non-citizen in the country is subject to deportment at the whim of the SoS. That's madness.
for the thousandth time, foreigners here on Green Cards don't have all the same rights as citizens!
Every non-citizen is fine as long as they abide by the terms they agreed to upon arrival, like not offering material support—donations, pamphlets, marches—for terrorist orgs.
"Where's the line?" CUAD, Mahmoud's org, threatened, menaced, and harassed Jewish students, destroyed property, assaulted staff. He was their public spokesman!
I can't do this again!
Chris Kyle decided on my behalf if foreigners including children lived or died. I'm cool with that.
I'm not cool with Obama killing an American citizen with no due process.
I'm perfectly fine with us killing overseas non-citizen perceived enemies and being wrong sometimes, though I reserve the right to use my vote against those abusing that power.
I am completely not cool with my government surveilling its own citizens, but completely cool and happy to see them surveilling Angela Merkel.
YMMV
So much for the "rules-based order". Good to see an honest patriot. No wonder the US regime and its supporters are so hated around the world.
Which thing are you objecting to? A sniper killing someone carrying a bomb towards troops?
Well, what was your opinion of the arrest of Nakoula Bassely who was blamed by Obama Administration for the Benghazi attack. State Department Hillary Clinton
I don't know who he is. Didn't know about it at the time.
But I want civil liberties to be respected under all administrations. If Obama/Hillary denied Bassely's due process, I would criticize them too.
HHS secretary and the PREP Act.
Rubio the rube, sliced and diced - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jew4RaKWKuM&t=289s
If you think that the riots at Columbia were speech and not actions, you were not paying attention.
Don't forget "mostly peaceful." Ant modicum credibility suffices to eradicate any evidence to the contrary, regardless of the preponderance. Haven't we being attention!
Let’s not. Green card holders are guests at the pleasure of the State Department, not citizens.
Oh we’ve done a real good job in vetting haven’t we? I’m willing to bet there are a lot of bad apples that arrived over the past four years, no vetting, no vaccinations of any and now how do we remedy that? Biden administration knew this would happen and here we are. Speaking of free speech…what’s with all the BS regarding Elon? Where’s his freedom?
Mike - "Folks here on Green Cards get 1st Amendment protections. As do all people: citizens, permanent residents, even visitors" you say in a father facile manner. A chapter and verse reference from the Constitution would make that assertion more credible.
Glenn card holders do not have the right to vote , nor serve on juries or work for the government. So there are limits. It’s a path to full citizenship, but you need to behave.
Green card
I say it in a "[r]ather facile manner" because nothing more is needed when confronted with simple language. Nor can I cite any chapters, since the entire 1st Amendment is one line. But if it makes you happy, I'll essentially repeat what I said, with a citation supplied. Here's the entire Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You'll see the entire text -- with one exception -- addresses what "Congress" cannot do. Two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence has applied that clause to the executive branch, as well as to the States, the latter via incorporation of the 14th Amendment into the Bill of Rights. Sorry, I'm not gonna cite all those cases "chapter & verse"; you'll have to do your own research.
Now, as to that exception, you'll see that it says "people." Not "citizens," not "property owners," not "everyone except Green Card holders." It says "people." The First Amendment prohibits the government, both federal and state, from preventing free exercise of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition to the government. It's not limited to citizens, nor have courts interpreted it to do so.
Foreigners and non-citizens cannot break our laws, nor do they anywhere near all the rights of Americans. Nor should they!! But they DO get most of the protections of the Bill of Rights, speech and assembly included. As well they should. This is the freakin' United States! We do it better and we should proudly flaunt that fact.
Are you kidding? What foreign students are not raising their hands? Oh, and we don’t want them to not march, right? Because that is the Promise of America. All Protest All The Time. Why are they here — to get their Bitch and Moan Degree? Not everyone (in fact, most people) in America are burdened by the need to make ends meet. Maybe we are too busy to care if somebody who hates us is flown away. Yes, of course. I should be better than that.
When foreigners (like I was when living there for 3 years) break US laws, you can deport them - which was always the case.
What you can’t do is have a Secretary of State deporting someone on the grounds of their protected speech having ‘potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences". Khalil has neither been accused nor charged of committing ANY crime. No evidence was offered.
This speech is expressly protected under your First Amendment for ANYONE in the United States, not just citizens or permanent residents. There are no classes or degrees of civil liberties in your Constitution - something that should be guarded at all costs.
However, you still retain the right to cancel any foreigner’s invitation if they break the law. Nothing has changed. Understand one thing though - what starts with the foreigner, the marginalised, the vulnerable in your society will eventually be forced on YOU. You’re not defending ‘their’ rights, you’re defending your own ✊🏻🙏🏻
As a foreigner married to a US service member, I was a Permanent Resident and subject to all kinds of checks/vetting that most PRs aren’t subjected to.
It always makes me laugh as a former service member myself, that ppl want to bang on about how great our countries are for their freedoms right up to the point that anyone wants to exercise them. Then it’s all, ‘Sit down. Shut up and colour.’
Of course, on whose behalf this suppression of civil liberties (constitutionally-guaranteed and otherwise) in our two countries is being carried out, is assiduously elided because in Matt’s words, it ‘gives me a headache’. Please.
But Matt was happy to quote the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) as a source for the ‘explosion’ in the incidents of ‘antisemitism’ in Australia, including the one he correctly cited as debunked in this piece.
To put into correct context, every instance of a person legally demonstrating in support of ending the genocide in Palestine was cited as an ‘antisemitic incident’ by ECAJ - including Jewish Australians.
None of this is to deny real antisemitism in the community (Australia or US); however, focusing on legally-protected free speech in support of ending international crimes against humanity allows real nazis to hide in plain sight.
To Matt - Chris Minns nor any other bell-end in Australia or the EU can’t threaten American civil liberties; they couldn’t hit the ground with their hats. American civil liberties are only under assault by other Americans. And they are doing it on behalf of one entity - and it ain’t Chris Minns.
the foreigner, the marginalised . .
Tell that to the Brits!
The discussion is about the state of play in the United States and/or Australia. Not Britain. Do try and keep up 🤦🏻♂️
But hey, bugger it, don’t do it for anyone else…do it for yourself. Once the precedent for removing civil liberties is set, it gets rolled out everywhere and to everyone eventually.
If there’s one lesson to be had in all these jurisdictions since 2001, it’s that supporting policies on the basis that it’ll only hurt people you don’t like is about the most shortsighted and self-defeating behaviour you can engage in. Ask the Brexiteers in Britain.
SENATOR Joe Biden (proudly claims he) wrote the Patriot Act in 1995, but it took 9/11 to pass. (Can you plagiarize a plagiarist?)
'National Security", always vaguely defined, trumps Constitutional Rights. As Ben Franklin noted, people who will give up their rights for security deserve neither rights nor security.
To insinuate that some foreigners come to America “SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies” is an inference that is totally devoid of truth or facts. When there is a gross injustice taking place in the world, it is incumbent upon all people, no matter your status, to stand up and make our voices loud and clear that we will not stand idly by and say nothing. I’m an American war veteran, and I strongly believe in freedom of speech, no matter your status.
So you know why each and every person who ever crossed our borders came here? We live in the real world folks. There are all sorts of people, with at least as many reasons.
You misread the point. They mostly don't do that today because they can't get away with it. If they were able to get an initial visa and then never be deported no matter what speech action / protest action they did, foreign governments would plant agents on purpose.
Speech is a right. Continued presence in the USA is not. It is also not a punishment to eject someone from the USA - literally, by the law it is not, because it has been adjudicated to be considered a civil matter. It is not deprivation of life, liberty, or property. It is removal of a privilege to continue to be in the USA. A privilege, not a right. Say what you want, just don't ask to be guaranteed anything when you show us who you are.
I'm an American veteran too who strongly believes in freedom of speech. If you feel it incumbent upon yourself to stand up against injustice anywhere in the world, have at it. That's the courage of your convictions. Making it incumbent upon all people besides yourself to have the courage of your convictions just isn't very realistic.
I have an idea. We could stop funding Israel, and then foreigners wouldn't come here to tell us to stop funding Israel. Also our taxpayer dollars could go toward our own country and its citizens. Seems like an obvious win.
Israel either buys or trades with the US, and the country also provides information to the United States. Furthermore, the US works with the Saudis and other Muslim countries. However, the United States has designated Hamas a terrorist organization. That means that foreigners on green cards cannot come here and promote Hamas.
The protestors are for their own specific schools' disinvestment. Shall we also federally mandate that private entitites can't invest in Israeli companies?
"NO ONE SHALL BUILD A WEBSITE WITH WIX ANYMORE" because Gaza?
What exactly is the threat posed by foreigners "coming here SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE of activism to change our policies"? I think that whatever threat that might amount to is far, far less of a threat than any measure we might take to fight against it.
I don't know, let's ask the Ukraine what the impact of Russians coming there to influence policy has been.
1. You really think a person would come all the way to a foreign country (i.e. the USA) to just change its policies?
2. We need every point of view not just what is fed us by, as Seymour Hersh puts it, the "stenographers of the US govt" such as the NY Times. This freedom counters the ignorance and arrogance we have that what we think is always right.
3. Whether there is criminal activity or not, the US govt is saying that the Pres. has the power to deport people if he feels their view undermines our foreing POLICY (not national security.)
4. What Trump et al are doing is not just to deport one person but to intimidate EVERYONE ELSE!!
5. When Trump doesn't like what federal judges are doing he threatens them or his lawyers lie to the judges or claim that the Pres. has the right to ignore them.
6. IMHO if you do not see that Trump is going after an imperial presidency that is superior to the other two branches AND the US Constitution then you will not be rightly alarmed as what is going on. Get past your hate for some people and see what is a greater evil.
1. Terrorists have done it in past, even willing to commit suicide, and spies go to other countries all the time. There is a term for it, foreign agitator"
2.They dont need to be here to hear them and we while criticism from within is unimpeachably desirable. Criticism from those seeking to BECOME citizens still is accepting and inviting foreign meddling in our affairs.
3. He has this power explicitly in current law. It's literally a phrase in the text of the law to deport someone who harms our foreign policy
4- TDS; DR
IMHO:
1. Presidents being approved in a referendum by the voters every four years, attenuates their imperiousness.
2. Most judges are not elected at all and have life tenure, which might or might not be a good idea.
3. Legislating from the bench makes the judiciary more imperial than either of the other two branches.
4. If any one of the branches is to be more imperial than the other two, it could safely be the legislature since the will of the people is expressed most widely and variously through the direct election of 535 members across the country.
You think people emigrate to the US in order to change our culture? I find it impossible to take this seriously.
Maybe you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist I guess.
Every one of these has a username like "@example2"
Check out my comments on 2018 Taibbi posts! You joined Racket news... I joined the thing that was two iterations before Hate Inc. I don't even remember the name.
And here you are still spouting apologetics for an actual literal genocide, trying to help it along. It doesn't seem to have helped you much.
So being part of American society is not wanting to change it? Keep in frozen forever? I doubt that anyone would come to the US "solely" to change it. And what if America is trying to change some other part of the world. Should a student from there be detained for objecting to that?
I guess you doubt the 9/11 pilots came here. I expect my country to send agents overseas of course as much as we protect ourselves against them here. How could I object and why would I care if Russia ejects an American for agitating there against Russian interest?
Pilots were here well before 9/11. My friends mom taught at Embry Riddle. They were there. Also FBI agents in different states alerted headquarters in 95 of Visa holders training as pilots. They did nothing.
You're confusing attacks on and within the US with students speaking out against US foreign policy while the narrative is that freedom of speech is what differentiates the US from other countries. That's OK if your happy to acknowledge that the US is just as unfree as other countries.
No, you doubted anyone would come to the US to change our policy and I pointed out a concrete example of people who did.
What a fucking idiot!
Solely for the purpose of activism? Who gets to determine the standard for “solely” and “activism?” You?
The Secretary of State, under existing law. I'm not describing a future state, I simply agree with the current one.
BackBay - You've touched on the nub of the controversy. If there was a universal agreement about precisely when freedom of speech became activism, and activism became action, the topic would never have even appeared on the radar.
The issue is not freedom of speech. It is action that violates the liberty of another person. That is what all of those students did. The US citizens who violated the rights of their classmates to peaceably attend class should be arrested and tried and punished if they are convicted. We can eject the foreigners who violated our laws and save ourselves the trouble of a trial. The guy was not only not a citizen, he had violated the terms of his presence in the United States. We are not obligated to give him a trial. He has fewer rights. Let him go home and work with Hamas from there.
That’s right Kelly, maybe I should report this post.
no one is talking about speech Matt, it is behavior like breaking things, tresspassing, impeding traffic by blocking free passage
Remember that civil disobedience is among the most cherished traditions in American political and social life. The country was founded on it. Thoreau, Rosa Parks, MLK, all of them broke the law to make America conform to their vision, not to the status quo.
Civil disobedience is inconvenient; that’s the point. It doesn’t work if we ask them to take a number, sit, and wait politely until they’re called.
Some civil disobedience is unlawful and puts the person at risk of arrest. Sometimes the SACRIFICE is worth it to improve society. Sometimes not. But it is a SACRIFICE. I remember telling a friend that martyrs used to meet bad ends. Now all our martyrs are champions in real time. I think that is not what a "martyr" is.
Once it was "Do the crime, do the time". Now crime is more political, and only successful if the perp gets off with a lenient sentence. I expect Luigi Mangioni to get off. Kevin Klinesmith. Most white-collar criminals, whose actions do more damage to society than someone who robs a bank.
100% this, what Orenv and michael888 say here. If you feel strongly enough about the issue to commit civil disobedience, then you're committing to doing the time - and you should want that because of the attention to your cause you bring.
That's literally the point of civil disobedience, you care enough or believe that the law needs to change, so you break it to make that point. Now people want to register their strong objection by breaking the law, but get off scott free anyway.
Sera, we’re talking about foreigners. We have enough people here breaking laws. We have no duty to import foreign troublemakers who don’t have the guts to live in their own countries.
Civil disobedience usually means passive resistance. There was little passive going on in these street demands. Trying to force views on those around you through demands and disruption of civil liberties is just intimidation through threats. Do it or we will continue to disrupt your daily activities to study, make a living. It is a mob mentality. You can have free speech without creating havoc for the rest of us.
This is not a free speech issue.
In fact I would suggest the opposite the daily threats and interference in the peaceful movements of people on campus and in the surrounding communities is an infringement. Especially egregious as all the hullabaloo was surrounding two other countries, by many foreign students.
Why do you think our own CIA have written strategies to effect a color revolution (create chaos) by whipping up the students in protests.
Like the 51 former intelligence agents declared - this has all the earmarks of foreign interference. Especially when Qatar funds Columbia to the tune of millions.
The guy took a stand and is facing the consequences.
You are responding to an imagined reality. The man did not do the things you describe. You seem to have read a few things written about Khalil in the corporate press and developed a point of view based on lies. Had he done anything illegal he would have been charged with some sort of crime. But he hasn’t been charged with anything. Instead, he was whisked away to a part of the country where right wing judges think as you seem to, and that was a clear indication that the case has no legal merit. That was overruled now. You have the right to say it’s not a free speech issue. But you only get to repeat that false statement because of the First Amendment. Of course it’s a free speech issue, as hordes of legal experts have explained. You make me sad.
This is not a new event. There are 200 year old laws to handle precisely this issue - foreign agitators - and they’ve been tested over and over and they still stand. Of course. Because only a group of idiots would allow people from other nations to advocate the opposite of your official policy.
You can be sad about it, but you’re still wrong.
no one reads the corporate press
of course but don't act all self righteous when you have to
pay the price
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-02-24/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-free-speech-challenge-to-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone
Sara, How do you feel about this when it applies to abortion clinic buffer zones? Kelly posted Columbia’s report in which hundreds of Jewish students and faculty told of their personal hostile and aggressive experiences during this time on campus.
Matt submitted FIRE’s example of a gazebo being deemed too small for free speech on campus by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that universities need times and places for these protests to occur. These Supreme Court rulings suggest that there are times and places that are inappropriate for free speech protests.
Civil Disobedience often involves arrests as was the case with the encampments at Columbia with the NYPD and in the case of the abortion center buffer zones. Both groups claim to be speaking up for human lives and feel passionate about their cause.
Sera - Well, there's historical civil disobedience and then there's what passes for civil disobedience today. Recruiting Thoreau, Rosa Parks, and MLK into the ranks of those at Columbia is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Rosa Parks did indeed politely take a seat which she know would elicit her inevitable arrest. MLK's inspiration was Gandhi's non violent advocacy, which motivated MLK to face beatings, fire hoses and police dogs, evidencing more courage than the entire Columbia cohort put together. Their stock in trade was a comfortable numerical superiority by which they vandalized, bullied, and intimidated, more cowardly than noble.
Remember that civil disobedience has been suppressed by the American government with extreme prejudice since the first year and the first president.
The country was founded on it. Shays Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, all of them broke the law and were stomped into powder to maintain the status quo.
Civil disobedience is grounds for instant arrest, trial and imprisonment; that’s the point. It doesn’t work if we ask drug dealers, rapists, murderers, rioters to take a number, sit, and wait politely until they’re called,
One of Jefferson's most famous letters was about Shays Rebellion (which put the Jan 6th "Insurrection" to shame; they had guns! Nine people were killed and two executed):
"Can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and always well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "
Wrong.
This issue is ALL about free speech, because Khalil has not even been charged with any of these things.
Deported for "blocking free passage"? Listen to yourself. I genuinely can't tell if some of the commentors in here are being serious or trying to stir up trouble; some of these arguments don't pass the common-sense sniff test from a mile away.
I'm with you. And I'm reminded of this: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-counterprotesters-invs/index.html
None of the people committing the actual violence against peaceful protesters were arrested or charged. In fact they were allowed to continue the attack. And some were former IDF soldiers. Why have they not been deported? Because the Trump Administration (and Biden's ) fully supports this sort of "free speech".
IMO - Freedom of speech is the most cherished of all American rights.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." ~~ Benjamin Franklin
"In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.' ~~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
You're wrong. Actual speech is what is being infringed up here due to the broadness of the language contained in the Alien Enemies Act and Trump's AntiSemitism Awareness Act.
Thank you Matt, for once again standing up for freedom of speech, which is an absolute value that requires reciprocal respect from people on the receiving end. To the nay sayers: being pissed that someone would have the temerity to raise their voice in opposition to US policies and reserving the right to toss their ass outta here looks from my POV like you’d be happy to do it with impunity but are willing to settle for easy targets. It doesn’t just take courage to exercise one’s 1st amendment rights - it takes strength to stand up for them when people you disagree with exercise them as well. If Americans aren’t willing to do that anymore they’re forfeiting the best thing we’ve got - for shame. A lot of people have been willing to stake their lives on it over the last 200+ years, but you can count yourselves out of that number without leaving the comfort of your soapbox. Good job.
"Trump should stand for freedom, openness, and not giving a fuck."
That's really it in a nutshell. No NEW speech codes and safe-spaces. I thought he ran against that crap.
I hope he gets off this new thing he's been on and gets back to the stuff he was elected to do.
Not giving a F about what exactly?? Foreigners leading disruptive illegal protests are a problem. The remedy is pretty easy, which as noted ad nauseum above, is why you are on your best behaviour when you are a GUEST. Turns out that MAYBE this guy is related to a HAMAS player. Maybe fake news, maybe not. Now he claims to be a political prisoner.... when he could be free immediately upon deportation back to his HOME country.
Except that his home country, Syria, is currently at war with . . . Israel.
Except his parents we're cleansed from Palestine... by Israelis. It's about the GENOCIDE, and free speech in USA to stop the bombs
Like Genocide Joe, Trump's Presidency will be defined by his TOTAL Zionist support both in the Middle East (Greater Israel) and domestically.
MAGA should be MIGA as many pundits have noted.
Classic gen X-r here (financially conservative and socially “liberal” although my kids would say I’m socially indifferent ) and I think you are spot on. The founding fathers wanted the Wild West from a free speech perspective and they were right - it’s not the government’s job to keep people from being stupid and we all bear the responsibility of allowing others to speak their minds and put on our big boy / girl pants and respectfully decide whether we agree with them or not. Excellent writing btw. :)
Matt's writing has been on fire as of late. Bravo!!
What an absolute load of shit.
As an Australian, thankyou for covering this. We never have been serious about our freedoms. If you go down a list of the US or British Bill of Rights we have almost none of them left. We have majority decisions in jury trials, routine searches without cause, no freedom of speech, we can be forced to self-incriminate ourselves, no gun rights, etc.
And all sides of politics and all viable minor parties all back this. There is no way out. The Liberals fight with Labor over the credit, as with the disinfo bill which only wasn't passed because the Liberals want the credit for it when they're next in power.
We really are sleepwalking into abject tyranny.
I’m so worried about your wonderful country and people.
Tyranny is the natural state of man. The USA is a complete aberration of this. On paper at least.
I am with you 100% on speech even for foreigners. Where it crosses the line is action. If Khalil only did speech then we should not deport even if legal. But from everything I have read this was not just about speech.
KDBD, You and many others commenting know nothing about why Mahmoud Khalil was invited to Columbia. He was a negotiator and never once incited any harm to anyone. The University was pleased with his work. Then that august, well respected institution, threw him to the wolves for $400 million and lost their reputation forever.
BTW, when the Supreme Court decided the Nazis could march in Illinois, the many Holocaust survivors who lived there were glad of the decision based on our First Amendment because, as they said, they remembered what Germany was like before the Holocaust. Everyone standing on US soil is protected by the First Amendment, no matter what they say. Period.
There are libel laws and slander laws and people are held accountable for breaking them when it causes harm that's probable. But hate speech is protected. For example, I detest the Jewish racist leadership in Israel and hate the racist leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans. I think the whole world is mad when it doesn't stand together and protest the genocide in Palestine that murders to exterminate anyone in Israel who is not Jewish. Our government thinks Jewish babies are superior to Palestinian babies and Yemeni babies. I think all babies are equal.
BTW, the Bibas mother and children were killed by Israeli bombs over a year ago. When Hamas wanted to send the bodies home, the Jews refused to take them at that time. I've become propaganda proof. So should you. Unfortunately, Americans are the most easily conned people in the world.
In those exact negotiations he threatened the university that events like what happened at Harrison Hall would continue until they gave in to his demands.
Two university employees were assaulted, kidnapped, and held hostage at Harrison Hall.
And that, would be extortion.
I stand by my original comment I understand you hate Israel and anyone who supports it. And you don’t think I or anyone commenting here knows Khalil Also the example of free speech you site about the Nazis is quite well known. None of that impacts what I said. If anything it supports why I said the first sentence.
Rob Roy, you am so smart. Please learn me other propaganda about bad Jewishers.
How about a person who comes to the States to advocate for the CCP. All they do is talk about it, and maybe throw parties and have lots of fun. Everyone loves this person. They have lots of friends and those friends talk up how fantastic the CCP is. Everyone on campus loves them because they have great parties and a wonderful Chinese buffet every thursday (followed by a great party). Next thing you know they are advocating for some bill that the CCP likes. And it turns out the CCP is funding all his efforts and paying him a salary. All this person is doing is talking. Is this a problem?
Consider that the CCP probably is bribing (funding) every one of our congress critters. They could give each one $1M and it would only cost $535M. Pennies. Would that be a problem? THIS is why we can deport aliens without due process and they don't have free speech rights.
Oh no, I have imagined your hypothetical worst-case scenario of parties and a buffet! Help! Call the police!
No, that would not be a problem. At all. If China wants to pay people to immigrate here legally and then throw parties and be popular then I guess we'll just have to suffer through it somehow. What a terrible burden for us.
"But what if they bribe senators" well then that would be a whole completely different unrelated thing, wouldn't it?
As in AIPAC bribing senators for decades, omnist?
Remember Chinagate? For "peanuts" in political donations, the CCP received permanent free trade nation status, off-shored jobs and high-end technology; it was critical for lifting 850 million Chinese out of poverty. A handful of Chinese went to jail in the US, but no politicians:
" FBI agent Daniel Wehr told Congress that the first head U.S. attorney in the investigation, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.'"
"... from everything I have read this was not just about speech."
Respectfully, then you are reading only one side of the story.
Wait... doesn't Australia strictly control legal immigration and hold all their illegal immigrants on some island off the coast?
I have friends that live there and they are disgusted with their government. But then the people keep voting for the wankers.
No, Australia (and particularly the federal Coalition party) makes a big song and dance about shipping *boat* immigrants to offshore detention while ignoring the biggest category of illegal immigrants: people who overstay their visas. It's all so fucking stupid. IMO, a waste of time, money and very limited military resources that we haven't been able to have a sensible conversation about as a nation ever since it was politically weaponised back in the early 2000s. If you say something like that out loud in Australia you will get immediately branded as a limp wristed leftist who wants to give boat people free blow jobs, as opposed to someone who just wants the Government to stop wasting so much fucking money on theatre.
(Much like how during COVID you would be labelled as a right wing extremist if you said out loud that you thought schools should stay open and teachers should grow a fucking pair and shut up.)
I am an American living in Australia for 19 years. You are a right wing extremist for saying rent should be paid on time
Australia is my home and I am an Australian citizen. The only reason I still say I am American is cause every single Australian tells me I am not a ‘real’ Aussie. Thanks God for that !
So basically you grew here, I flew here. Typical Aussie wit 😁
Sounds like California.
The last sentence, yes. But not the first... CA invites them all in... a sanctuary state.
Frank - Sovereign nations like Australia have no moral or legal obligation to let anyone from outside into the country, but governments of those nations do have a basic obligation for the well-being of their own citizenry.
The most humane and sensible way to ensure the well-being of both native and any new prospective citizens is to limit immigration to no more than can be assimilated culturally and economically. Doing so reduces internal ethnic hatred and resentment instead of promoting them.
Counties like Poland and Hungary have figured this out. Countries like Britain, France, and Germany have not--to their great misfortune. It ain't rocket science; how the hell can they keep ignoring the obvious so much?
Yes and no. Illegal immigrants coming via boat are detained off-shore. It's a fairly cruel detention but the majority of Australians agree with it. I can't see any better alternative myself, so even though I think it's cruel I'm not arguing against it.
However legal immigration is off the charts. The past 2 years we've imported 1+ million immigrants. For a country with a total population of 26 million that's insane. To put it in perspective USA illegal immigration the past 2 years despite being millions of people is only ~1% of the population. Australian immigration was 3.5% of the population.
This rapid immigration has driven up the cost of living, put a huge strain on housing and public services, and there's been a substantial uptick in violent crime and civil unrest. Mostly due to a few groups who refuse to let go of their "old country" baggage. I'm very worried we're going to see a backlash with a nationalist party gaining power.
That's why Premier Minns is defending Hate Speech laws. Because many people are very angry and speaking up against the immigration. This is what he thinks is a way to stop dissent, but in my experience all this does is bottle the anger up until it explodes. Minns is a twit and he's going to make it worse.
Not a big fan Matt of inviting guests to our home only to find out they are encouraging fights to break out. We have plenty of our own s... disturbers and that's plenty, thank you.
I have an idea. We should stop funding Israel. Then foreigners won't come here and tell us to stop funding Israel. Also, we will have more of our taxpayer dollars for our own citizens.
Good luck with that. . .
He's married to a US citizen. If you need to think of the entire country as your house then he's not a "guest", he's an in-law.
Not all in-laws are welcome across the threshold.
Well it ain’t your house, is it? His wife wants him here, I want him here, plenty want him here. You meanwhile are welcome to go where you like.
You told me to think of the entire country as my house, so I did.
As a proud New South Welshman: Minns and his government suck ass and I was extremely disappointed when the previous state government was thrown out at the last election. Glaringly unlike their *utterly incompetent* federal counterparts, the NSW Coalition got shit done and managed to do it without resorting to a bullshit culture war every five seconds, because they had a mountain of actual policy and infrastructure achievements to point to instead.
So every time the useless cunt opens his mouth nowadays I just yell at my TV. He seems very happy to re run the playbook that the previous NSW Labor government employed: do nothing but make an announcement every ten minutes or so to distract people from the lack of coherent policy and rampant corruption.
I heartily endorse Matt's message. Fuck you, Chris Minns!
I would join you in dishing out “fuck you” if I could figure out how you dudes structure your government. The parliament meetings where everyone yells at each other sure is fun to watch
Ha! It's just one man's opinion, but I just want my governments to get on with the job of running their domain. I look back on ten years of the last NSW state government and I see shit-tons of shiny new train lines that I used to dream about when I was growing up in Western Sydney, a complete reform of the DMV equivalent so it actually works semi-efficiently, and a bunch of new motorways* that let me avoid about 10,000 traffic lights. It is legitimately a total transformation and for the better. I am genuinely mystified how people looked at that and went "Yeah... but why don't we try going back to Labor, who literally have ministers who've gone to prison for corruption since their last term?"
*with eye-watering tolls attached, but you can't have everything i suppose
Conversely, ten years of our last Federal Government is just a non-stop parade of sitting on their hands and doing FUCK ALL while manageable problems became full-blown crises. For instance: they manage the energy grid. Coal-fired power stations are on the way out. None of the energy companies wanted to build a new one. We had three options: build new gas plants, expand renewable energy, or go nuclear. It took them ten years to NEVER MAKE A DECISION and now the whole grid is fucked up because investors didn't know where to put their money. Yet, we're barely three years out from under their staggeringly incompetent regime and the polls are already showing that people are thinking of switching back. Makes we want to gouge my fucking eyeballs out.
"Coal-fired power stations are on the way out. None of the energy companies wanted to build a new one"
Yes.for several reasons you "forgot" to mention...
Expand renewables??? Poes law in action..
Sure if you like mad inflation/intermittent power outages/loss of heavy industry and loss of services...and increase in energy charges..sounds like a brilliant idea..its worked in so many other countries..oh wait..it never has...
1/The coal burning companies have trouble getting loans now from Woke Banks.
What a surprise...
2/Coal burning companies cannot compete with the "profits" of "renewables" due the REC payments.
Renewable Energy Certificates.
The public subsidises multinational companies to produce energy at a $ loss.
Coal supplies grid.Customers pay once.
Solar supplies to grid.Customers pay once.
The solar REC is now traded and when it is finalised the general public pay the solar again.
Solar gets twice the payment of the coal.
Wind supplies once to the grid.Customers pay once
The REC is now traded and when it is finalised the general public pay the wind (again).
If the wind energy is not needed they are told to stop feeding the grid.
A constraint payment is made.
Wind gets paid twice all the time..and sometimes three times.
REC is the sign of a fourth world country that sits on some of the largest deposits of coal and gas in the world...sells it overseas for peanut returns...and destroys their own energy system..
Mike, good points, but don’t confuse us with facts.
Energy policy in Oz has been a basket case for years and you've done a great job here of outlining why! Untangling all the mess requires political will and the ability to ignore the polls and do what's right by the taxpayers. The federal branch of the Coalition just buckled and did nothing instead. That's my main complaint. Their first budget in 2013 was a blueprint for action*, and they were so stung by the backlash they just trashed it and coasted on fumes.
*Mind you, I thought it was bloody stupid action, but I could at least have respected their commitment to implementing a policy vision.
You would make a good American.
I'm actually going to be living in the States for the next three years, so we'll see how that plays out in reality ;)
Just don't protest Israel while you're here, or you might get tossed right back.
The reform of the "DMV" and other state services was one of the most astounding things I have ever seen a government accomplish, and with little or no fuss or fanfare. America, which hates big government, but has seemingly thousands of overlapping bureaucracies, would do well to learn from the (was it Baird?) government.
I was living in Melbourne and then Darwin from 2010-2015. When I first came back to Sydney and had to go to Service NSW for the usual administration, I was blown away by how painless it was compared to the old RTA. The Coalition deserved their entire decade in office based on that change alone.
I thought they had just done a typical government waste of money by closing it and repainting and furnishing it. Mind blown when I went in and found courteous smiling helpful staff greeting me, and expeditious and courteous service. For a wider range of services.
If you guys didn’t drive on the wrong side of the road you would be happier. Just wait till you get to USA and start driving. You guys are just like us but with better accents. Come south. We will teach you how to say ya’ll
This comment makes me think I am not alone in NSW even though that’s how I feel
Some of our most successful politicians spend time in the crossbar hotel. I wish they all would.
I know, right? I'm already way over my time budget allowance for learning other government systems by reading eugyppius.
All we have to do is stand in a pit and yell at each other. Then we are Australians. Plus a few other little things. I think.
Spiders might be one of those little things. Or in some cases, not so little, from what I understand.
I'm sure those in favor of the latest insults to civil liberties are telling themselves "It isn't repression when our side does it." I think I've heard this song before.
"Israel/Palestine gives me a headache, so I’m not going to go on about it, but I don’t get it."
Surely there most be some space inside that giant head to realize that Jews are history's scapegoats and are always blamed and vilified for every ill and injustice and for everything from capitalism to imperialism to 9/11 to WW2 and that they have been targeted and menaced in a way we would never accept for any other minority—and not in 1925 but 2025.
Jews are the canary in the coalmine for social breakdown and the first group attacked when people decide that debate is over and it's time to start cracking skulls. You don't get it? Maybe you should commission one of those timelines for the dozens of attacks and atrocities committed in say the last 50 years by countries (China, Russia, Iran etc) that were ignored or contextualized because everyone was busy denouncing the Jewish state for the crime of existing. Or how bout for all the peace offers made to the Palestinians, all of which were rejected?
Nina Jankowicz getting a tweet deleted is a crime and crisis but Jews being threatened and attacked requires context. I guess Never Again always meant that next time we'll make sure the Brownshirts get ACLU representation.
"I don’t get it" is a total cop-out.
Poor Israel can't even do one little genocide without having to suffer through mean tweets. It's not fair!
"I was a victim in the past so I'm justified in being a perpetrator in the present." That's not a thing.
Tom Lehrer lost a court case that cost him $100,000 and apparently ended his performing career. His crime? A blisteringly satirical song against racism, classism and yes, anti-semitism that included the laugh line "and everybody hates the Jews." This was in the context of everybody hating everybody, except during National Brotherhood Week. "Be thankful that it doesn't last all year." To even suggest that that segment of the American population is actually doing pretty well, and that a distant country's people who share a religion and cultural background with them maybe shouldn't be able to do absolutely anything they want to the original inhabitants... is somehow antisemitic.
I don't get it either, Matt.
I thought we blamed Muslims for 9/11. And WWII is blamed on Hitler and the Japanese.
Yes, there's that history.
I'm just uncomfortable that this one country gets a Forever Preference card.
Thinking that Israel and Jews have a "Forever Preference card" is not only historically and politically inaccurate, it's the opposite of the truth.
Israel was founded by Jews (easily the world's most hated and persecuted minority) who were either escaping Europe's attempt to murder all of them or the Islamic world's expulsion (or worse), returning to their ancient homeland to build their own state, and have offered peace treaties to the Arab remnant we call "Palestinians" from the 1947 UN Partition Plan all the way through to Ohlmert's famous napkin of 2008:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0dv7rxxvo
Every one of these peace attempts was rejected without even a counter-offer, because the Palestinian leaders have said clearly and repeatedly that their ultimate goal isn't their own state but the destruction of the Jewish state. (And remember also: when Israel allowed these people free movement into their country, they were met with multiple suicide bombers who murdered somewhere around 1K civilians by blowing themselves up on buses and in crowded restaurants.)
This culminated in the massacre of 10/7, which was cheered on by millions of Leftists and Islamists all across the globe, even before the bodies were buried and well before the IDF entered Gaza.
Israel is easily the world's most vilified state, the focus of more UN denunciations than every other country combined and the focus of multiple NGOs that support and feed their enemies who are somehow history's only third-generation "refugees", and is still surrounded by fanatical theocratic terrorists who want to destroy it.
If this is a "Forever Preference card", I'm sure that Jews and Israelis would be happy to relinquish it.
Before Covid, I used to think of Australia as a mix of California and Texas. Since Covid, it's basically Canada with extra spiders. So, this dude is pretty much par of the course.
Brilliant. May I steal that?
thanks. absolutely ;)
Right On, Matt! How do we hold our heads up, saying we are anchored in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution--one that Trump swore to uphold--when he is now kicking it aside? This does not compute. I also am disgusted with my own unwillingness to express my disgust with Trump himself. I have been hoping that I misunderstood him--but I value your perspective and see that Trump's actions are absolutely sending discordant messages to the world. We say one thing but then do the exact opposite. He is beginning to look and sound more like our globalist neighbors. I took this risk with Kennedy hoping that Trump was a better person than I had thought. It appears that he has done many things--I think--are good, but it also appears there are many other things unfolding that I am really concerned about. Am I still glad it was Trump who won? Yes. Absolutely. But I can't let him have a free ride and a free reign to trample our Constitution. If he dishonors this document, he is trash. The whole world is watching and praying that we will uphold the 1st Amendment. Musk has said this is the reason he joined with Trump. Were they both lying? I will go on 'X' and call them to task. They must know that those who put them in office didn't do so to give them carte blanch in doing whatever they felt like on any given day. We have got to demand that Trump stay true to the values he said he stands for--or he is no better than Trudeau, Macron, and all the other lying "pretty boys" who have taken over and taken down their countries.
And, both of you, will you feel the same if it is determined he lied on his Visa application?
I’m flattened by the fact even the supposed readers of Racket don’t get this, and are so willing to turn snowflakes and cancel and worse, abuse and imprison people without a criminal charge. It is the height of ahistorical delusional stupidity to imagine that those in power will not turn that power on them. This will not end well, for anyone.
That's the thing. Due process in relation to the deportation of an alien is not the same thing as due process in relation to a crime and imprisonment. The bar is much lower in the first case, which need not involve criminality.
Trump's direction on this subject is wrong. Moving toward creating any "protected class" is an unconstitutional move. The detention and possible deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is based on very similar circumstances to the accusations against Trump in relation to Jan. 6th. The proof didn't exist to jail Trump and, as far as Khalil is concerned, his case depends on proof that his action did lead to criminal conduct. legally, there probably is cause to revoke his green card. Optically, carrying water for AIPAC is a bad look.