And it also said that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Now, jump ahead to reality and read the clear language of the Immigration and Nationality Act which is unequivocal about the powers of the State Department; "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretar…
And it also said that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Now, jump ahead to reality and read the clear language of the Immigration and Nationality Act which is unequivocal about the powers of the State Department; "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."
Subsequent cases state that "A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for
that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.
Would this apply to a citizen? NO! It is clearly a rule that would be unacceptable for a citizen who has full constitutional rights. Which SCOTUS allows. Get a grip - green card holders can be deported for failing to report a change of address; why would you think Khalil's behavior is not more detrimental than that?
There is nothing about that ruling that states that Congress may make rules that restrict the First Amendment rights of LPR aliens. The INA is subordinate to the First Amendment; anything in the INA that contradicts the Constitution is illegal. But it does require the Secretary of State to state "...facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for
that determination ...", and merely exercising one's First Amendment rights is facially *unreasonable*.
Get a grip. Failing to report a change of address is a violation; exercising your 1A rights is not.
Your belief that Khalil is in trouble for exercising 1st Amendment rights is as childishly naive as your apparent belief that the lawyers who prepare the SOS's letter would in anyway suggest that it was based on that.
Childishly naive? My 'belief', as you describe, it based on the only reason the Trump administration has provided: that is, Khalil's role in organizing and speaking at Palestinian protest events at Columbia University. That's the only reason provided, so it's not naive to rely on that.
Hmmm, yeah you think the Trump admin has stated that their deportation justification is Khalil exercising his 1st amendment rights. Do not you see why your position is naive?
Here is what has been documented
From the Notice to Appear "“The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United State"
From Rubio, [the State Department] "will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported."
Homeland Security, [Khalil] "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
You are leaping to the conclusion that his protected speech is the cause of these accusations but not all "support" falls under that category. For example, the organization of the protest (riots) is fraught with activities that are not protected speech. The violence, the kidnapping of custodians, the harassment of students (Jewish or otherwise), vandalism , etc. are all illegal and can be linked to him through conspiracy, accessory, or accountability laws. BTW, material support of a terrorist organization can include "... any action that can assist a terrorist organization or one of its members in any way, such as providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contributions"
The bottom line is that Khalil's actions are the cause of the deportation effort.
'Naive' is too big of a word for you, you don't seem to know what it means. I stated what the Trump administration provided as justification, and it's not what you claimed I said, as anyone who scans my comment can see. The rest of your claims are typical deflection bullshit and weak attempts at guilt-by-association. Khalil isn't charged with kidnapping of custodians, or vandalism, etc. Your claim that Khalil "can be linked to them through conspiracy, etc." is bullshit because the Trump admin is not alleging he conspired, was an accessory, etc. And BTW, material support to terrorism can *not* be based on distributing literature unless its actual literature produced by the terrorist group itself. The bottom line is that you don't understand the First Amendment, immigration laws, anti-terrorism laws, or the Trump admins case against Khalil. You also don't seem to understand the difference between conclusory statements made by administration officials and actual legal justification made to a court.
Well, naive no longer applies to your post - its just absurd. I provided you with the only official statements regarding the charges (the NTA and Rubio's comments) plus actual quotes from government publications. You just seem to be reciting wishful thinking.
BTW, "Anti-Israel protesters who again stormed Barnard College’s Manhattan campus this week handed out sick “Hamas Media Office” leaflets glorifying the Oct. 7 terror attacks.
The disturbing missives — including one titled “Our narrative … Al-Aqsa Flood,” the name the Palestinian terror group gave to its brutal incursion into Israel — were handed out by some of the masked protesters who took over the Milstein Center on Wednesday.
“Happening now: protesters at Barnard College are handing out pamphlets written by the Hamas Media Office justifying October 7th,” Elisha Baker, co-chair of Columbia Students Association for Israel, wrote in a post on X, sharing pictures of the pamphlets."https://www.aol.com/anti-israel-mob-stormed-barnard-150536799.html
Based on the above I could ask if you were lying but I am just going to assume you are that ignorant. Speaking of which...
You completely miss the significance of the ability of the SOS to simply submit a letter assuring the validity of the their deportation order. They do not need to file any charges - they have plenty of reason to deport him and they do not need to answer any questions from the courts. Specifying the charges will only open the door to having a trial instead of an Immigration hearing and getting him out of the country quickly. Since a trial is NOT required, why spend years and tons of money on trying to do something that can be resolved much more easily. In the off chance Khalil is not departed sooner, the charges will be used later.
You're just recycling your previous arguments. Your understanding of the law is wrong. It's certainly not enough for the SoS to submit a letter assuring the validity of their deportation order. A conclusory statement is not enough to satisfy the law. The law requires that the government provide evidence to an immigration judge (not a trial judge), and that evidence has to be something other than 1A-protected activities. All your stuff about Barnard College is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's just another attempt at deflection. Based on that irrelevant distraction, what am I lying about now? You seem to be confused.
I am repeating my case because it is correct and the only lying happening here is by you to yourself.
"(C)Foreign policy
(i)In general
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
"A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability." Matter of Ruiz-Massieu, 22 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1999)
And it also said that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Now, jump ahead to reality and read the clear language of the Immigration and Nationality Act which is unequivocal about the powers of the State Department; "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."
Subsequent cases state that "A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for
that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.
Would this apply to a citizen? NO! It is clearly a rule that would be unacceptable for a citizen who has full constitutional rights. Which SCOTUS allows. Get a grip - green card holders can be deported for failing to report a change of address; why would you think Khalil's behavior is not more detrimental than that?
There is nothing about that ruling that states that Congress may make rules that restrict the First Amendment rights of LPR aliens. The INA is subordinate to the First Amendment; anything in the INA that contradicts the Constitution is illegal. But it does require the Secretary of State to state "...facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for
that determination ...", and merely exercising one's First Amendment rights is facially *unreasonable*.
Get a grip. Failing to report a change of address is a violation; exercising your 1A rights is not.
Your belief that Khalil is in trouble for exercising 1st Amendment rights is as childishly naive as your apparent belief that the lawyers who prepare the SOS's letter would in anyway suggest that it was based on that.
Childishly naive? My 'belief', as you describe, it based on the only reason the Trump administration has provided: that is, Khalil's role in organizing and speaking at Palestinian protest events at Columbia University. That's the only reason provided, so it's not naive to rely on that.
Hmmm, yeah you think the Trump admin has stated that their deportation justification is Khalil exercising his 1st amendment rights. Do not you see why your position is naive?
Here is what has been documented
From the Notice to Appear "“The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United State"
From Rubio, [the State Department] "will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported."
Homeland Security, [Khalil] "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
You are leaping to the conclusion that his protected speech is the cause of these accusations but not all "support" falls under that category. For example, the organization of the protest (riots) is fraught with activities that are not protected speech. The violence, the kidnapping of custodians, the harassment of students (Jewish or otherwise), vandalism , etc. are all illegal and can be linked to him through conspiracy, accessory, or accountability laws. BTW, material support of a terrorist organization can include "... any action that can assist a terrorist organization or one of its members in any way, such as providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contributions"
The bottom line is that Khalil's actions are the cause of the deportation effort.
'Naive' is too big of a word for you, you don't seem to know what it means. I stated what the Trump administration provided as justification, and it's not what you claimed I said, as anyone who scans my comment can see. The rest of your claims are typical deflection bullshit and weak attempts at guilt-by-association. Khalil isn't charged with kidnapping of custodians, or vandalism, etc. Your claim that Khalil "can be linked to them through conspiracy, etc." is bullshit because the Trump admin is not alleging he conspired, was an accessory, etc. And BTW, material support to terrorism can *not* be based on distributing literature unless its actual literature produced by the terrorist group itself. The bottom line is that you don't understand the First Amendment, immigration laws, anti-terrorism laws, or the Trump admins case against Khalil. You also don't seem to understand the difference between conclusory statements made by administration officials and actual legal justification made to a court.
Well, naive no longer applies to your post - its just absurd. I provided you with the only official statements regarding the charges (the NTA and Rubio's comments) plus actual quotes from government publications. You just seem to be reciting wishful thinking.
BTW, "Anti-Israel protesters who again stormed Barnard College’s Manhattan campus this week handed out sick “Hamas Media Office” leaflets glorifying the Oct. 7 terror attacks.
The disturbing missives — including one titled “Our narrative … Al-Aqsa Flood,” the name the Palestinian terror group gave to its brutal incursion into Israel — were handed out by some of the masked protesters who took over the Milstein Center on Wednesday.
“Happening now: protesters at Barnard College are handing out pamphlets written by the Hamas Media Office justifying October 7th,” Elisha Baker, co-chair of Columbia Students Association for Israel, wrote in a post on X, sharing pictures of the pamphlets."https://www.aol.com/anti-israel-mob-stormed-barnard-150536799.html
AND
The Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas issued a 16-page document on Sunday, entitled ‘Our Narrative … Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’. The document addresses many critical questions about the context, the timing, and the events of October 7. https://www.palestinechronicle.com/hamas-document-reveals-why-we-we-carried-out-al-aqsa-flood-operation-summary-pdf/
Based on the above I could ask if you were lying but I am just going to assume you are that ignorant. Speaking of which...
You completely miss the significance of the ability of the SOS to simply submit a letter assuring the validity of the their deportation order. They do not need to file any charges - they have plenty of reason to deport him and they do not need to answer any questions from the courts. Specifying the charges will only open the door to having a trial instead of an Immigration hearing and getting him out of the country quickly. Since a trial is NOT required, why spend years and tons of money on trying to do something that can be resolved much more easily. In the off chance Khalil is not departed sooner, the charges will be used later.
You're just recycling your previous arguments. Your understanding of the law is wrong. It's certainly not enough for the SoS to submit a letter assuring the validity of their deportation order. A conclusory statement is not enough to satisfy the law. The law requires that the government provide evidence to an immigration judge (not a trial judge), and that evidence has to be something other than 1A-protected activities. All your stuff about Barnard College is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's just another attempt at deflection. Based on that irrelevant distraction, what am I lying about now? You seem to be confused.
I am repeating my case because it is correct and the only lying happening here is by you to yourself.
"(C)Foreign policy
(i)In general
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
"A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability." Matter of Ruiz-Massieu, 22 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1999)