It does give him the same rights (I think Glenn did a video on that). Also, the guy didn't participate in the demonstrations or the break in Hamilton Hall himself. He was simply supportive of the cause that the people who did the break-in also support. (Or at least purport to support). If you wanna call him a "spokesperson" for speaking …
It does give him the same rights (I think Glenn did a video on that). Also, the guy didn't participate in the demonstrations or the break in Hamilton Hall himself. He was simply supportive of the cause that the people who did the break-in also support. (Or at least purport to support). If you wanna call him a "spokesperson" for speaking at the rally, then so be it, but then can a guy who speaks in support of curved immigration be considered a spokesperson for racists or Nazis, because they too support the same thing?
Glenn is off on this and has been a long time. Of COURSE, it's different. A citizen cannot be deported. A green card holder CAN be deported for heading a group that broke our laws. Hello. NO non citizen has the same rights as citizens. Period.
His group broke the laws and he was negotiating for them. That makes him personally responsible. He was negotiating that certain things had to be done by Columbia in order for them to stop. They don't have to break laws to be deported, either. We don't have to put up with him fronting a group (and probably being funded by far left crazies).
Not anywhere near the same thing. He specifically told them to be peaceful. They didn't. Thisi guy negotiated with Columbia claiming they wouldn't stop until they met their demands. NOT the same.
The gist as I understand it is that he was involved with the group that occupied one or more buildings on Columbia's campus and may have been involved in planning (which needs to be determined factually, of course) and that he was the primary party negotiating with the administration of Columbia University.
The last part, at least as I get it, is that this is tantamount to extortion. Namely, conditions were presented that Columbia needed to satisfy in order for this illegal activity to cease.
If the guy was involved in the planning of these events and was "negotiating" terms to end the so-called "occupation", then it would seem he broke the law.
And if that can be established, that would seem grounds for deportation.
No, Trump urged people to "peacefully and patriotically" have their voices heard and, once it became clear that matters had spiraled out of control (the how-and-why of that being an entire discussion on its own), Trump urged people to disperse.
In particular, Trump didn't "negotiate" on behalf of law-breakers at the Capitol (and again, per the above, it's still not clear the who, how and why of the initial agitation, or the reason the Capitol Police were so severely under-staffed, or why Trump's offer of the National Guard was turned down -- see former Police Chief Sund's description of that).
So, no, Trump in no way acted in a fashion analogous to Khalil, who appears to have been involved in and negotiated for the organization(s) that occupied campus buildings.
You don't know his funding, so you can't deport someone for "probably" having shady backing or claiming that as proof of malicious intent.
Also, I think you do have to put up with him, since this is a dangerous standard you would be setting. Just like Bridges v. Wixon said one can't be deported for being a communist, without beign a member of the communist party, one can't be outted as a terrorist, without having been part of a terrorist organisation. You could say he advocates the same goals and is therefore a "terrorist supporter", but then you would be in a position where you would also have to call anyone whose opinions align with the goals of the Russian state as a Putin-propagandist and deport for that fact, no?
Sorry, but we CAN deport people for this. He lied on his application that he would not do this kind of stuff. He does not have equal rights. we would have denied his application as Marco Rubio says. And we CAN deport people for this kind of thing. He was holding Columbia hostage.
Threats, intimidation, material support of terrorism, and physical acts of violence aren’t speech protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States, nor is a green card holder a naturalized citizen with full constitutional rights, sweet summer child.
what threat? what material support did he offer a terrorist org.? what physical act of violence did he commit?
And as I'm sure you're well aware, there is plenty of legal precedent that says if you have been lawfully allowed to enter the country (i.e. the US gov't said "yes, you may enter. here are your papers") then you have the full constitutional rights to things like due process, etc.
I’m not responsible for the State Department’s strategy here, but I suspect because charges aren’t legally necessary regarding a green card holder. Personally I’m all for charges…
Even if you indeed CAN deport him for this (not having broken the law, but just having bad views), it is not a good precedent to advocate for. It can become a very slippery slope very quickly, regardless of whether this particular case is legally sound in the end.
I'm not "advocating" for it. But it's not a stretch in this case. I do not want them to expand things like this. So will be watching it. Supporting Gaza and peace is not the same thing as supporting Hamas. No reason to support Hamas to support Palestinians. They should watch what they say. No "river to the sea" crap, etc. And don't break laws. Noncitizens should be careful like I would be if I was in a foreign country.
Ok, I get what you are saying, but what is the basis that makes him a Hamas supporter and not a peace-nick Palestine one?
As the article claims, a lot of people misinterpret this issue because they don't care to read too much about it or are simply dumb. Are we going to go after probable intent on this?
Hilarious. Yes, Glenn's coverage is "accurate" which is why I subscribe and support him. And yes, I believe is conclusions are "off" which is my right.
And no they do NOT have exactly the same rights because a citizen can't be deported and there ARE ways in which a green card can be revoked, regardless of what Glenn says. It says so right on the US gov. site.
No, the site says there are times when they will not get due process. And I taught argument classes. Obama removed illegal immigrants without due process. Every president does it. It's all fine if it's not Donald Trump. Do some real research.
ps Some of the other comments in this thread were talking about all illegal immigrants should have due process, like those "mistakenly deported for being Tren de Aragua" when they are here illegally. So I was talking more broadly, but green cards CAN and HAVE been revoked without due process.
There are also reasons you can deport green card holders without "due process." Period. The government site has said this for years says: if you lied on your application --which this guy did--he had ties with these terrorists already. If you commit a crime (he was head of a group who broke the law, spokesperson -- not real smart of him). That one is enough.
"The government site has said this for years says: if you lied on your application --which this guy did--he had ties with these terrorists already." -- Pure speculation. Where's the evidence?
"If you commit a crime (he was head of a group who broke the law, spokesperson" -- 1) He was ONLY a spokesperson, NOT the leader, for the group in the context of negotiations with Columbia administrators; 2) He HIMSELF did NOT commit any of the crimes that some of the protesters did.
Well, I'll tell you. Do you really think you'd go into a foreign country on a visa or green card and be a spokesperson for a group that is breaking their laws and tell a university they will only stop if it meets their demands? You wouldn't be too smart.
Yes, absolutely he can. If I went to a foreign country, I'd be very careful not to advocate for a group that is breaking laws! So his rights ARE different than ours. It's likely he's being funded by some huge activist group, too. So he's not very smart to do this at all.
It's "likely" isn't a valid cause for deportation.
Also, unless he said something to the tune of "the Hamilton break-in is good", simply advocating something that the people who did participate in the break-in also claim to support isn't cause for deportation either, regardless of how "dangerously foolish" that cause may be.
In his spokesperson role he made demands of Columbia in exchange for an end to unlawful activities of the CUAD protesters. Obvious extortion. But your overall tone suggests that you think he needs to be convicted of some crime to have his green card revoked and to be deported to Syria. That is not the case.
I didn't know of the demands to Columbia, so I'm willing to cede that point.
Ok, he doesn't need to commit a crime to be deported, but is throwing people (who are not just randomly here, but are legal and have permanent resident status) out of the country for views they might hold that we don't like and are "dumb" or "dangerously dumb" a thing to be in support of?
I guess if it comes down to simply throwing people out whose views we don’t like, which seems so capricious and cruel, I’d still have to say, throw them out! While I don’t suppose we can expect all our guests to swear allegiance to and belief in the concepts expressed in our constitution, we should certainly kick them out if they do the least thing that indicates they might wish to under mine those concepts or that document.
And I would add that the burden of proof is not on us but on the guest. That’s how it is with guests, and I think that’s made pretty clear when they come here.
Donald Trump, no matter what you can say about him as if you didn’t ever commit a sin or live in a glass house yourself, understands these very basic facts about reality and the state of the human soul. Perhaps he learned the hard way, but he has learned; that’s a lot more than we can say for most of us.
Since the guy came here legally and went through all the bureaucratic bullshit to do so and then also to obtain a green card, the government can be more attentive to him.
Other than that, I don't think there's much to say against your point. Ok, it's valid. I just find it a bit cruel and discouraging for people that want to enter the US.
Since when did speech start getting compared to physical acts of violence/felonies?
...this guy has been arrested (and in all likelihood will also be deported) for expressing his opinions...no crime committed, no violence perpetrated (unless being made uncomfortable by someone feels "violent" to you).
All I have heard is people *speculating* that he "encouraged" others to occupy a building (not at all convinced that's illegal anyway), and that he told the school they would continue protesting if the groups demands weren't met (i.e., exactly how a protest works, and, conveniently, also not illegal).
--and you want to know how I know this?....They did NOT and still have NOT CHARGED him with ANY crimes. ...if they had charged him with a crime (almost anything would do), they would have easy grounds to revoke his green card/deport him and no one could complain. The very fact they have not done this should be all the proof you need.
Well, the Trump Administration can't be accused of subtlety; they're probably not charging Khalil with anything so as to better send the message to everyone that criticizing Israel IS the crime. Hurting the feelings of Jewish students is also now a crime, unless they're Jewish students holding a Seder in an encampment (THAT'S a bad Jew). They don't have much time to chill speech or further bury news of war crimes against Palestinians because support for the genocidal state in the U.S. is tanking, ha ha. My guess is that Trump's handler, Miriam Adelson, will make him ban TikTok for that reason.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to developments in the U.S.: it's now illegal to say anything negative about Israel. You can say "Fuck the U.S.!" until you're blue in the face, but criticizing Israel is verboten. Looks like all our Congress critters are repaying AIPAC what it cost to buy them, if not more.
It does give him the same rights (I think Glenn did a video on that). Also, the guy didn't participate in the demonstrations or the break in Hamilton Hall himself. He was simply supportive of the cause that the people who did the break-in also support. (Or at least purport to support). If you wanna call him a "spokesperson" for speaking at the rally, then so be it, but then can a guy who speaks in support of curved immigration be considered a spokesperson for racists or Nazis, because they too support the same thing?
Glenn is off on this and has been a long time. Of COURSE, it's different. A citizen cannot be deported. A green card holder CAN be deported for heading a group that broke our laws. Hello. NO non citizen has the same rights as citizens. Period.
So what laws did he break, exactly? I think that is the question.
His group broke the laws and he was negotiating for them. That makes him personally responsible. He was negotiating that certain things had to be done by Columbia in order for them to stop. They don't have to break laws to be deported, either. We don't have to put up with him fronting a group (and probably being funded by far left crazies).
By that logic, Donald Trump should be arrested for January 6th.
Not anywhere near the same thing. He specifically told them to be peaceful. They didn't. Thisi guy negotiated with Columbia claiming they wouldn't stop until they met their demands. NOT the same.
What laws did he break?
The gist as I understand it is that he was involved with the group that occupied one or more buildings on Columbia's campus and may have been involved in planning (which needs to be determined factually, of course) and that he was the primary party negotiating with the administration of Columbia University.
The last part, at least as I get it, is that this is tantamount to extortion. Namely, conditions were presented that Columbia needed to satisfy in order for this illegal activity to cease.
If the guy was involved in the planning of these events and was "negotiating" terms to end the so-called "occupation", then it would seem he broke the law.
And if that can be established, that would seem grounds for deportation.
apples and oranges
Words are alleged to cause violence in both instances.
No, Trump urged people to "peacefully and patriotically" have their voices heard and, once it became clear that matters had spiraled out of control (the how-and-why of that being an entire discussion on its own), Trump urged people to disperse.
In particular, Trump didn't "negotiate" on behalf of law-breakers at the Capitol (and again, per the above, it's still not clear the who, how and why of the initial agitation, or the reason the Capitol Police were so severely under-staffed, or why Trump's offer of the National Guard was turned down -- see former Police Chief Sund's description of that).
So, no, Trump in no way acted in a fashion analogous to Khalil, who appears to have been involved in and negotiated for the organization(s) that occupied campus buildings.
By your logic, Donald Trump is a green card holder…🤦♂️
Apparently, Mahmoud Khalil's words caused violence, just like Trump's.
You don't know his funding, so you can't deport someone for "probably" having shady backing or claiming that as proof of malicious intent.
Also, I think you do have to put up with him, since this is a dangerous standard you would be setting. Just like Bridges v. Wixon said one can't be deported for being a communist, without beign a member of the communist party, one can't be outted as a terrorist, without having been part of a terrorist organisation. You could say he advocates the same goals and is therefore a "terrorist supporter", but then you would be in a position where you would also have to call anyone whose opinions align with the goals of the Russian state as a Putin-propagandist and deport for that fact, no?
Plus the Trump-J6 comment below.
Sorry, but we CAN deport people for this. He lied on his application that he would not do this kind of stuff. He does not have equal rights. we would have denied his application as Marco Rubio says. And we CAN deport people for this kind of thing. He was holding Columbia hostage.
As long as you don't care about free speech...
Threats, intimidation, material support of terrorism, and physical acts of violence aren’t speech protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States, nor is a green card holder a naturalized citizen with full constitutional rights, sweet summer child.
what threat? what material support did he offer a terrorist org.? what physical act of violence did he commit?
And as I'm sure you're well aware, there is plenty of legal precedent that says if you have been lawfully allowed to enter the country (i.e. the US gov't said "yes, you may enter. here are your papers") then you have the full constitutional rights to things like due process, etc.
Hi, sweetheart. So, why has there been such a delay in charging him with these crimes?
Hi Gladys,
I’m not responsible for the State Department’s strategy here, but I suspect because charges aren’t legally necessary regarding a green card holder. Personally I’m all for charges…
Holding Columbia hostage is a bit of a stretch.
Even if you indeed CAN deport him for this (not having broken the law, but just having bad views), it is not a good precedent to advocate for. It can become a very slippery slope very quickly, regardless of whether this particular case is legally sound in the end.
I'm not "advocating" for it. But it's not a stretch in this case. I do not want them to expand things like this. So will be watching it. Supporting Gaza and peace is not the same thing as supporting Hamas. No reason to support Hamas to support Palestinians. They should watch what they say. No "river to the sea" crap, etc. And don't break laws. Noncitizens should be careful like I would be if I was in a foreign country.
Ok, I get what you are saying, but what is the basis that makes him a Hamas supporter and not a peace-nick Palestine one?
As the article claims, a lot of people misinterpret this issue because they don't care to read too much about it or are simply dumb. Are we going to go after probable intent on this?
Glenn's coverage is accurate. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's "off."
Permanent residents have the SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS as citizens, which includes the right to DUE PROCESS.
Hilarious. Yes, Glenn's coverage is "accurate" which is why I subscribe and support him. And yes, I believe is conclusions are "off" which is my right.
And no they do NOT have exactly the same rights because a citizen can't be deported and there ARE ways in which a green card can be revoked, regardless of what Glenn says. It says so right on the US gov. site.
You're arguing a strawman. Read my last sentence again.
p.s. They wouldn't have been here longer than two weeks if not for Biden. Blame him.
No, the site says there are times when they will not get due process. And I taught argument classes. Obama removed illegal immigrants without due process. Every president does it. It's all fine if it's not Donald Trump. Do some real research.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html
"Obama removed illegal immigrants without due process." -- Strawman. We're not talking about illegal immigrants.
You cite CNN and then tell ME to "do some real research." Ironic much?
ps Some of the other comments in this thread were talking about all illegal immigrants should have due process, like those "mistakenly deported for being Tren de Aragua" when they are here illegally. So I was talking more broadly, but green cards CAN and HAVE been revoked without due process.
There are also reasons you can deport green card holders without "due process." Period. The government site has said this for years says: if you lied on your application --which this guy did--he had ties with these terrorists already. If you commit a crime (he was head of a group who broke the law, spokesperson -- not real smart of him). That one is enough.
"The government site has said this for years says: if you lied on your application --which this guy did--he had ties with these terrorists already." -- Pure speculation. Where's the evidence?
"If you commit a crime (he was head of a group who broke the law, spokesperson" -- 1) He was ONLY a spokesperson, NOT the leader, for the group in the context of negotiations with Columbia administrators; 2) He HIMSELF did NOT commit any of the crimes that some of the protesters did.
Well, I'll tell you. Do you really think you'd go into a foreign country on a visa or green card and be a spokesperson for a group that is breaking their laws and tell a university they will only stop if it meets their demands? You wouldn't be too smart.
So, he can be deported for being devil's advocate, without taking part in the illegal activity?
Even if the patriot act allows for this thing (I haven't read the law to be certain), is that really something one wants?
Yes, absolutely he can. If I went to a foreign country, I'd be very careful not to advocate for a group that is breaking laws! So his rights ARE different than ours. It's likely he's being funded by some huge activist group, too. So he's not very smart to do this at all.
It's "likely" isn't a valid cause for deportation.
Also, unless he said something to the tune of "the Hamilton break-in is good", simply advocating something that the people who did participate in the break-in also claim to support isn't cause for deportation either, regardless of how "dangerously foolish" that cause may be.
In his spokesperson role he made demands of Columbia in exchange for an end to unlawful activities of the CUAD protesters. Obvious extortion. But your overall tone suggests that you think he needs to be convicted of some crime to have his green card revoked and to be deported to Syria. That is not the case.
I didn't know of the demands to Columbia, so I'm willing to cede that point.
Ok, he doesn't need to commit a crime to be deported, but is throwing people (who are not just randomly here, but are legal and have permanent resident status) out of the country for views they might hold that we don't like and are "dumb" or "dangerously dumb" a thing to be in support of?
I guess if it comes down to simply throwing people out whose views we don’t like, which seems so capricious and cruel, I’d still have to say, throw them out! While I don’t suppose we can expect all our guests to swear allegiance to and belief in the concepts expressed in our constitution, we should certainly kick them out if they do the least thing that indicates they might wish to under mine those concepts or that document.
And I would add that the burden of proof is not on us but on the guest. That’s how it is with guests, and I think that’s made pretty clear when they come here.
Donald Trump, no matter what you can say about him as if you didn’t ever commit a sin or live in a glass house yourself, understands these very basic facts about reality and the state of the human soul. Perhaps he learned the hard way, but he has learned; that’s a lot more than we can say for most of us.
Since the guy came here legally and went through all the bureaucratic bullshit to do so and then also to obtain a green card, the government can be more attentive to him.
Other than that, I don't think there's much to say against your point. Ok, it's valid. I just find it a bit cruel and discouraging for people that want to enter the US.
Charles Manson didn't participate in the murder of Sharon Tate either.
Since when did speech start getting compared to physical acts of violence/felonies?
...this guy has been arrested (and in all likelihood will also be deported) for expressing his opinions...no crime committed, no violence perpetrated (unless being made uncomfortable by someone feels "violent" to you).
If (if) he encouraged the others to break into buildings, etc he could be held responsible even though he didn't physically break in himself.
That is simply not so. How you can’t see that is as hard to square as saying men can have babies.
@JB
Do you have a specific example I am unaware of?
All I have heard is people *speculating* that he "encouraged" others to occupy a building (not at all convinced that's illegal anyway), and that he told the school they would continue protesting if the groups demands weren't met (i.e., exactly how a protest works, and, conveniently, also not illegal).
--and you want to know how I know this?....They did NOT and still have NOT CHARGED him with ANY crimes. ...if they had charged him with a crime (almost anything would do), they would have easy grounds to revoke his green card/deport him and no one could complain. The very fact they have not done this should be all the proof you need.
Well, the Trump Administration can't be accused of subtlety; they're probably not charging Khalil with anything so as to better send the message to everyone that criticizing Israel IS the crime. Hurting the feelings of Jewish students is also now a crime, unless they're Jewish students holding a Seder in an encampment (THAT'S a bad Jew). They don't have much time to chill speech or further bury news of war crimes against Palestinians because support for the genocidal state in the U.S. is tanking, ha ha. My guess is that Trump's handler, Miriam Adelson, will make him ban TikTok for that reason.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to developments in the U.S.: it's now illegal to say anything negative about Israel. You can say "Fuck the U.S.!" until you're blue in the face, but criticizing Israel is verboten. Looks like all our Congress critters are repaying AIPAC what it cost to buy them, if not more.