Khalil shouldn't be deported for his speech. He should be deported for his crimes, of which there is ample evidence. Over at The Free Press today we've been discussing this and one comment was that Khalil was involved in negotiations with his university that he and his group would stop blocking access and occupying buildings if Columbia …
Khalil shouldn't be deported for his speech. He should be deported for his crimes, of which there is ample evidence. Over at The Free Press today we've been discussing this and one comment was that Khalil was involved in negotiations with his university that he and his group would stop blocking access and occupying buildings if Columbia divested from Israel. That sounds like extortion. "I will stop breaking the law and harassing other students if you do what I want." For that reason, he should be deported. .... If this was a group preventing any other group of people (women, blacks, asians, gays) from lawfully entering a building, eating, or walking peacefully through campus, they would have been shut down on day one and likely prosecuted for harassment or threats. ... But thank you for a great interview Matt! Lots of good stuff here.
Someone else had expressed the idea that since Columbia is enabling this behavior from students and faculty, that Trump is correct to cut off federal funding from the entire school until such time that they disallow open bigotry on campus - blocking Jewish students and faculty from getting to class, open harassment of Jewish students, etc. We would not tolerate this behavior if the target was black students, so why are we tolerating it here?
@Alison_Brennan (is there some kind of patent on tagging or is that just one more thing you can't do at substack). The negotiations with University Administration are perhaps the closest thing I've seen to a substantive notion that Khalil planned for or participated in civilly disobedient lawbreaking that abrogated the rights of others.
It was a good interview and the FIREman, to his credit, was careful to parse–holding out the possibility that an accusation of lawbreaking could be leveled. He is also right that the government should say so sooner than later. It should not appear that Khalil is threatened with deportation for vociferous enunciation of his beliefs. You'd think maybe Trump would be sensitive to the notion that passionate rhetoric should land you in the dock.
But I'm disappointed that the interview does not speak to what appear to be this widely reported evidence on Khalil's behavior, that is paraphrased in comments but I think deserves a more thorough going over.
@Alllison - "That sounds like extortion. 'I will stop breaking the law and harassing other students if you do what I want.' For that reason, he should be deported."
But if he's extorting by threatening to continue breaking the law, then he's already breaking the law, so why offer "extortion" as a legal basis for deportation? On your analysis, he was already breaking the law--or do you mean, he was already doing things that shoulda been illegal?
I only know what I've read in a couple articles. I think what I meant is IF he was breaking the law as some people have claimed (ie negotiating with Columbia and promising he would end the protests which included blockades and harassment and threats in exchange for Columbia divesting from Israel) then that sounds like extortion. Which is a crime. I'm not a lawyer -- not even close. However, I think that by the fact that he was -- and there appears to be a lot of evidence of this through videos and social media posts -- breaking laws by threatening and harassing people (which are crimes even if Columbia allowed the blockades on campus) then that alone should get him deported. I only went to college for two years, but I engaged in some protests ... and I always obeyed campus rules, I never vandalized anything, and I never stopped other students from going about their business. I believe in protests even if I disagree with what they're protesting. But what happened last year on college campuses weren't peaceful protests anymore than the riots in 2020 were peaceful.
The issue at hand is what happened at Columbia last year, and what Mr. Khalil may or may not have done that legally justifies his deportation or not - not what happened at other universities last year and definitely not what happened at totally different protests 5, 10, or 100 years ago. There is a wealth of legal precedent - including Supreme Court decisions - extending Constitutional protections identical to what citizens enjoy to legal immigrants: this is where Trump and his minions appear to have vastly overstepped Constitutional bounds. If Mr. Khalil committed a crime, he must be charged with that crime; and he deserves a hearing before a judge and a jury of his peers and must be found guilty of that crime in a court of law before deportation hearings can even begin.
As a green card holder, he is constitutionally protected. Thus, the government would be violating the constitution If they were to "just ship him out" without following due process.
They're perfectly following due process. Somebody who has no legal presence in the country (his green card has been revoked) has to be deported. He's scheduled to argue his case in front of an immigration judge, where he can lose or prevail (his best chance is a new baby, not free speech). Alternatively, he can just go to his home country right away. There are other countries out there, you know, he's not being sent to the Moon. And saying "no" (you can't stay here) to somebody isn't a cruel punishment.
The reason wasn't arbitrary, it's a "national security threat" (they even wrote a document quoting case law). He can argue in front of an immigration judge that he's not and restore his green card, if the judge believes him. Even if he wins, his conditional green card expires by the end of the year and he's not entitled to extend it.
FYI, any plausible reason will do. Border agents revoke a green card if they don't like your answer to their question (say good bye to your job, belongings and rental apartment), and nobody is upset. But this guy is so very special if he's featured on TV! Outrage!
Is he? I admit I'm completely clueless on how the law stands regarding green card holders, but I was under the impression that like its policy towards migrants it's basically all arbitrary and you don't really have a whole lot of rights until you're a citizen. That's generally why companies LIKE green cards; they can hold it over employees to make them put up with stuff that citizens wouldn't.
Andy McCarthy commented on this case and explained his rights. He says it’s a common tactic for islamists to try to hide behind first amendment rights. He says that is what is going on here.
He's not a green card holder anymore as it's been revoked. And, in this regard, there are no protections. A border guard can revoke it if they don't like your answer to a question.
He gets a hearing. And, no, he does not have all the rights of a citizen. He is classed as a “ US person” . He gets many rights (first amendment) but not all. Interesting post from previous assistant US district attorney Andy McCarthy. Sorry, don’t know where I read his podcast, but it’s out there.
“ nice school youse got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” Extortion. Plain and simple. Activist hiding behind protections of the first amendment.
No extortion is legal. For some people. When Biden bragged in the CFR video of extorting Poroshenko/ Ukraine (withholding $billion unless their AG-equivalent Victor Shokin was immediately fired, for investigating Burisma), that was business as normal. Rumors were that Biden also extorted $5 million each for himself and Hunter from Burisma for getting Shokin fired. (Supposedly Zlochevsky, founder of Burisma, had complained to several friends about the shakedown, but when the FBI showed up, he said he knew nothing (The correct answer in Ukraine.) And what's $10 million to an oligarch?)
One man's extortion is another man's negotiating tactic.
Completely agree! These are not nice people and know you cannot debate with them. They hide behind the free speech doctrine and their ridiculous masks which are meant to intimidate. It's wrong and as you wrote if this happened to any other minority the college would have shut it down immediately. Totally bogus!
He can engage in free speech as a guest, but we don’t have to let him stay and become a citizen if he supports our enemies. Deportation becomes just an early version of the inevitable goodbye.
As Matt Type aptly put it, Trump is Israel's b**, and we're all seeing just how much control they have over our government. Trust me, this will not go down well in the long run.
EVERYTHING seems to increase antisemitism, it seems like. Sometimes, I feel like I’m a Jew in the 1930’s Germany. These are trying times for Christians attempting to defend the Jewish people. Is is a daytime nightmare for me. “Stand up, o men of God”
Have to disagree. Matt has somewhat flown off the handle. This is not a first amendment case, as much as Matt wished it were. Jihadists have, for years, used the first amendment as a smoke screen, or a shield. previous US attorney Andrew McCarthy talks about this tactic a bunch. Look him up to benefit from his experience.
Ah, Dem damn joos spend all that money to bribe officials to favor the joos. They might even control elections. They probably own the voting machines. Plus we know they own the banks. Just can't trust anything 'cuz joos! They got space lasers, too.
"That sounds like extortion"? Then why wasn't Mr. Khalil charged with that crime and brought to trial for it? Perhaps because there was no legal basis for bringing such a charge? You want to do away with the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta and go back to the "Good Old Days(TM)" of mob rule and lynch law. Just go straight from "that sounds like extortion to me" and straight to conviction without the messy inconvenience of due process.
He is not afforded “due process” green card status has a few points that don’t benefit your little jihadist. Plenty of legalese defining his “rights” written in these posts. Do your own work. You will find the answer.
Another dime store attorney chiming in. What is the difference from a legal perspective between a Citizens rights and those of someone holding a green card? I definitely don't know and I bet you don't either.
I’m not an immigration attorney, but it just so happens that just today I was reading a book about the Palmer Raids in which many of these same legal issues were eventually addressed by the courts of the land, including the US Supreme Court. It’s never too late to educate yourself, and the Internet makes it very easy to look these things up. Mr. Khalil is a “legal permanent resident”, which means that he has proceeded quite far down the legal pathway to becoming a naturalized citizen. “It is the highest immigration status an immigrant can obtain” short of becoming a naturalized citizen. Thus he and every other person enjoying the same immigration status have many Constitutional rights accorded to them.
He is classed as “a US person” subject to certain sanctions that may apply to our little trouble maker. The Sec. of State has the authority to boot him out, after a hearing. My limited understanding. Per Mr. Andrew McCarthy. His podcast is out there, somewhere. Sorry, I’m not competent enough to tell you where….
This chat apparently deletes all links. My last reply to you had two deleted. Look this up at the JUSTIA website: "Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)" also NPR website "What rights do green card holders have in the U.S.?" for a start.
Assuming this is true, it's an unforced error for the Trump administration to be talking about his advocacy for Hamas as the basis for his expulsion. Even if he is lawfully subject to deportation because he's committed a crime or other deportation-relevant infraction, by stating the wrong reason in their public discourse, they're doing great harm to the cause of frees speech.
They're running the risk of locking us into a deadly rhythm wherein free speech is no longer an American value and the only thing that changes when political power or societal consensus changes is that a different set of viewpoints are censored. That would be, of course, a disastrous turn of events, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against the recent censorship regime.
"Terrorist Acts" suggests actions. Did he send them money, weapons? Did he smuggle Hamas fighters into the country? Verbally expressing opinions does not equate with action. I'll be anxious to see what "terrorist acts" he committed.
He participated in an illegal activity. He was an arbiter, representing an illegal act. The invasion of the school and subsequent vandalism was/is a criminal act. He attempted to extort the school with a not so passive attempt to threaten the school. “ nice school you got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” The guy is bad news. He is hiding behind the first amendment.
Only if you consider this mess a matter of the first amendment. In my view, it is not. This is a tactic of jihadis to hide behind the first amendment. Trump does shoot from the hip, and says things that gets everybody’s pants in a wad. The problem at hand is the fact that this guy is a a plant from the hamas cabal. His mission is to sew distrust and hate against the Jews. He is using the first amendment as a shield for his actions. Known fact. He knows he has a fertile field for his plans.
That’s what I am reading- Kahlil will be deported for ‘material facts’ gathered about his involvement in terrorism. It will not be a ‘free speech’ issue. It’s not looking good for him.
Khalil shouldn't be deported for his speech. He should be deported for his crimes, of which there is ample evidence. Over at The Free Press today we've been discussing this and one comment was that Khalil was involved in negotiations with his university that he and his group would stop blocking access and occupying buildings if Columbia divested from Israel. That sounds like extortion. "I will stop breaking the law and harassing other students if you do what I want." For that reason, he should be deported. .... If this was a group preventing any other group of people (women, blacks, asians, gays) from lawfully entering a building, eating, or walking peacefully through campus, they would have been shut down on day one and likely prosecuted for harassment or threats. ... But thank you for a great interview Matt! Lots of good stuff here.
Someone else had expressed the idea that since Columbia is enabling this behavior from students and faculty, that Trump is correct to cut off federal funding from the entire school until such time that they disallow open bigotry on campus - blocking Jewish students and faculty from getting to class, open harassment of Jewish students, etc. We would not tolerate this behavior if the target was black students, so why are we tolerating it here?
100% accurate!
not sure about 100%, but generally agree.
@Alison_Brennan (is there some kind of patent on tagging or is that just one more thing you can't do at substack). The negotiations with University Administration are perhaps the closest thing I've seen to a substantive notion that Khalil planned for or participated in civilly disobedient lawbreaking that abrogated the rights of others.
It was a good interview and the FIREman, to his credit, was careful to parse–holding out the possibility that an accusation of lawbreaking could be leveled. He is also right that the government should say so sooner than later. It should not appear that Khalil is threatened with deportation for vociferous enunciation of his beliefs. You'd think maybe Trump would be sensitive to the notion that passionate rhetoric should land you in the dock.
But I'm disappointed that the interview does not speak to what appear to be this widely reported evidence on Khalil's behavior, that is paraphrased in comments but I think deserves a more thorough going over.
Impossible to argue against your point. Thank you
Assuming that's an accurate representation of his actions, sending him home sounds appropriate.
More concerning to me, is Columbia leadership tolerating it and not expelling him at the time.
Emphasizing: if accurate.
He’s no longer a student. He graduated, so why is he even involved with campus activities ?
Actually, they did expel him. For one day;then rescinded the expulsion. Who knows why…
@Alllison - "That sounds like extortion. 'I will stop breaking the law and harassing other students if you do what I want.' For that reason, he should be deported."
But if he's extorting by threatening to continue breaking the law, then he's already breaking the law, so why offer "extortion" as a legal basis for deportation? On your analysis, he was already breaking the law--or do you mean, he was already doing things that shoulda been illegal?
I only know what I've read in a couple articles. I think what I meant is IF he was breaking the law as some people have claimed (ie negotiating with Columbia and promising he would end the protests which included blockades and harassment and threats in exchange for Columbia divesting from Israel) then that sounds like extortion. Which is a crime. I'm not a lawyer -- not even close. However, I think that by the fact that he was -- and there appears to be a lot of evidence of this through videos and social media posts -- breaking laws by threatening and harassing people (which are crimes even if Columbia allowed the blockades on campus) then that alone should get him deported. I only went to college for two years, but I engaged in some protests ... and I always obeyed campus rules, I never vandalized anything, and I never stopped other students from going about their business. I believe in protests even if I disagree with what they're protesting. But what happened last year on college campuses weren't peaceful protests anymore than the riots in 2020 were peaceful.
The issue at hand is what happened at Columbia last year, and what Mr. Khalil may or may not have done that legally justifies his deportation or not - not what happened at other universities last year and definitely not what happened at totally different protests 5, 10, or 100 years ago. There is a wealth of legal precedent - including Supreme Court decisions - extending Constitutional protections identical to what citizens enjoy to legal immigrants: this is where Trump and his minions appear to have vastly overstepped Constitutional bounds. If Mr. Khalil committed a crime, he must be charged with that crime; and he deserves a hearing before a judge and a jury of his peers and must be found guilty of that crime in a court of law before deportation hearings can even begin.
Why bother when they can just ship him out?
As a green card holder, he is constitutionally protected. Thus, the government would be violating the constitution If they were to "just ship him out" without following due process.
They're perfectly following due process. Somebody who has no legal presence in the country (his green card has been revoked) has to be deported. He's scheduled to argue his case in front of an immigration judge, where he can lose or prevail (his best chance is a new baby, not free speech). Alternatively, he can just go to his home country right away. There are other countries out there, you know, he's not being sent to the Moon. And saying "no" (you can't stay here) to somebody isn't a cruel punishment.
Whether that revocation was lawful is under investigation. The reason must follow specific criteria, and cannot be arbitrary.
Now it's "relocation"? Is it AI talking or something?
??
Sorry, misread it.
The reason wasn't arbitrary, it's a "national security threat" (they even wrote a document quoting case law). He can argue in front of an immigration judge that he's not and restore his green card, if the judge believes him. Even if he wins, his conditional green card expires by the end of the year and he's not entitled to extend it.
FYI, any plausible reason will do. Border agents revoke a green card if they don't like your answer to their question (say good bye to your job, belongings and rental apartment), and nobody is upset. But this guy is so very special if he's featured on TV! Outrage!
Is he? I admit I'm completely clueless on how the law stands regarding green card holders, but I was under the impression that like its policy towards migrants it's basically all arbitrary and you don't really have a whole lot of rights until you're a citizen. That's generally why companies LIKE green cards; they can hold it over employees to make them put up with stuff that citizens wouldn't.
Andy McCarthy commented on this case and explained his rights. He says it’s a common tactic for islamists to try to hide behind first amendment rights. He says that is what is going on here.
He's not a green card holder anymore as it's been revoked. And, in this regard, there are no protections. A border guard can revoke it if they don't like your answer to a question.
Well not sure that he actually has all the rights a citizen has, but he probably does need a trial.
He gets a hearing. And, no, he does not have all the rights of a citizen. He is classed as a “ US person” . He gets many rights (first amendment) but not all. Interesting post from previous assistant US district attorney Andy McCarthy. Sorry, don’t know where I read his podcast, but it’s out there.
“ nice school youse got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” Extortion. Plain and simple. Activist hiding behind protections of the first amendment.
Uh, because extortion is illegal?
No extortion is legal. For some people. When Biden bragged in the CFR video of extorting Poroshenko/ Ukraine (withholding $billion unless their AG-equivalent Victor Shokin was immediately fired, for investigating Burisma), that was business as normal. Rumors were that Biden also extorted $5 million each for himself and Hunter from Burisma for getting Shokin fired. (Supposedly Zlochevsky, founder of Burisma, had complained to several friends about the shakedown, but when the FBI showed up, he said he knew nothing (The correct answer in Ukraine.) And what's $10 million to an oligarch?)
One man's extortion is another man's negotiating tactic.
Some say the US is a Mafia State?
Some that say that may be right.
Completely agree! These are not nice people and know you cannot debate with them. They hide behind the free speech doctrine and their ridiculous masks which are meant to intimidate. It's wrong and as you wrote if this happened to any other minority the college would have shut it down immediately. Totally bogus!
Both/and.
He can engage in free speech as a guest, but we don’t have to let him stay and become a citizen if he supports our enemies. Deportation becomes just an early version of the inevitable goodbye.
And yes of course for the more obvious reasons.
As Matt Type aptly put it, Trump is Israel's b**, and we're all seeing just how much control they have over our government. Trust me, this will not go down well in the long run.
Thanks to groups like AIPAC, ADL, SPLC and others, the entire US government is Israel's b***h.
This is likely to increase antisemitism.
It already has. #CounterProductive #UnintendedConsequences
EVERYTHING seems to increase antisemitism, it seems like. Sometimes, I feel like I’m a Jew in the 1930’s Germany. These are trying times for Christians attempting to defend the Jewish people. Is is a daytime nightmare for me. “Stand up, o men of God”
What do you mean by "this will not go down well in the long run?"
Angak means that once the tipping point is reached and Muzzies are in complete controller, the non-muzzles will be3 hunted down and executed.
There is some historical significance to your words.
Why single out Trump?
Because he's the current Israel puppet-in-chief.
Have to disagree. Matt has somewhat flown off the handle. This is not a first amendment case, as much as Matt wished it were. Jihadists have, for years, used the first amendment as a smoke screen, or a shield. previous US attorney Andrew McCarthy talks about this tactic a bunch. Look him up to benefit from his experience.
And how much control do "they" have over government. Be specific, with cogent examples.
Here are just a few examples:
https://bamdadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/the-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy-bamdadi-dot-com.pdf
https://swprs.org/the-israel-lobby-facts-and-myths/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSjXhMUVKE
https://www.leefang.com/p/israeli-documents-show-expansive
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/03/22/the-best-congress-aipac-can-buy/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/216004-2/216004/
https://truthblitzkrieg.com/2024/08/05/bibis-war-of-terror-agenda/
https://forward.com/israel/453286/us-pro-israel-groups-failed-to-disclose-grants-from-israeli-government/
https://rumble.com/v52rl4f-system-update-show-286.html
https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/1786972327953285503
https://rumble.com/v47eafo-system-update-show-212.html (start at 1:00:10)
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/05/09/how-information-is-controlled-by-washington-israel-and-trolls-leading-to-our-destruction/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/does-pbs-know-that-washin_b_533808
Ah, Dem damn joos spend all that money to bribe officials to favor the joos. They might even control elections. They probably own the voting machines. Plus we know they own the banks. Just can't trust anything 'cuz joos! They got space lasers, too.
So, no response related directly to any of the examples provided, which you specifically asked for. No surprise.
You don't get to just announce that someone has committed a crime and then proceed forthwith as if it's true.
"That sounds like extortion"? Then why wasn't Mr. Khalil charged with that crime and brought to trial for it? Perhaps because there was no legal basis for bringing such a charge? You want to do away with the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta and go back to the "Good Old Days(TM)" of mob rule and lynch law. Just go straight from "that sounds like extortion to me" and straight to conviction without the messy inconvenience of due process.
Come on. You know damn well that’s not the argument. The dude is a rotten bastard that has come to our country to stir shit. Joan of Arc, he is not.
He is not afforded “due process” green card status has a few points that don’t benefit your little jihadist. Plenty of legalese defining his “rights” written in these posts. Do your own work. You will find the answer.
Another dime store attorney chiming in. What is the difference from a legal perspective between a Citizens rights and those of someone holding a green card? I definitely don't know and I bet you don't either.
I’m not an immigration attorney, but it just so happens that just today I was reading a book about the Palmer Raids in which many of these same legal issues were eventually addressed by the courts of the land, including the US Supreme Court. It’s never too late to educate yourself, and the Internet makes it very easy to look these things up. Mr. Khalil is a “legal permanent resident”, which means that he has proceeded quite far down the legal pathway to becoming a naturalized citizen. “It is the highest immigration status an immigrant can obtain” short of becoming a naturalized citizen. Thus he and every other person enjoying the same immigration status have many Constitutional rights accorded to them.
“Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” P. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/#148.
US Supreme Court https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/
He is classed as “a US person” subject to certain sanctions that may apply to our little trouble maker. The Sec. of State has the authority to boot him out, after a hearing. My limited understanding. Per Mr. Andrew McCarthy. His podcast is out there, somewhere. Sorry, I’m not competent enough to tell you where….
The Palmer Raids and other Wilsonian excesses were a low point in the US for a long time. "National Security" run amok.
This chat apparently deletes all links. My last reply to you had two deleted. Look this up at the JUSTIA website: "Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)" also NPR website "What rights do green card holders have in the U.S.?" for a start.
Assuming this is true, it's an unforced error for the Trump administration to be talking about his advocacy for Hamas as the basis for his expulsion. Even if he is lawfully subject to deportation because he's committed a crime or other deportation-relevant infraction, by stating the wrong reason in their public discourse, they're doing great harm to the cause of frees speech.
They're running the risk of locking us into a deadly rhythm wherein free speech is no longer an American value and the only thing that changes when political power or societal consensus changes is that a different set of viewpoints are censored. That would be, of course, a disastrous turn of events, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against the recent censorship regime.
Again, it is not a free speech arrest. He committed terrorist acts / it will be about ‘national security’.
"Terrorist Acts" suggests actions. Did he send them money, weapons? Did he smuggle Hamas fighters into the country? Verbally expressing opinions does not equate with action. I'll be anxious to see what "terrorist acts" he committed.
He participated in an illegal activity. He was an arbiter, representing an illegal act. The invasion of the school and subsequent vandalism was/is a criminal act. He attempted to extort the school with a not so passive attempt to threaten the school. “ nice school you got here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” The guy is bad news. He is hiding behind the first amendment.
Only if you consider this mess a matter of the first amendment. In my view, it is not. This is a tactic of jihadis to hide behind the first amendment. Trump does shoot from the hip, and says things that gets everybody’s pants in a wad. The problem at hand is the fact that this guy is a a plant from the hamas cabal. His mission is to sew distrust and hate against the Jews. He is using the first amendment as a shield for his actions. Known fact. He knows he has a fertile field for his plans.
That’s what I am reading- Kahlil will be deported for ‘material facts’ gathered about his involvement in terrorism. It will not be a ‘free speech’ issue. It’s not looking good for him.
I just wrote a long comment, those should be called riots, not protests. Terrorism meet the Coddling of the American mind.
Amen
That’s exactly what this guy is doing. Extortion.