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 Somebody who has no legal presence in the country (his green card has been revoked) has to be deported.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!
"National security threat" is absolutely arbitrary. The government has been using that dubious rhetoric since at least the Cold War (then ramped up again after 9/11) to justify many actions that the public would not consent to if it knew the real reasons.
Khalil holds a regular (not conditional) green card because he married a US citizen, which means he has lawful permanent residency and the right to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely.
So, the riots on campus and Hamas didn't happen, right? Since everything is just "arbitrary", you can always say it didn't happen. He can argue in front of the immigration judge that he wasn't involved, he can't argue it's arbitrary. (The 9/11 aftermath wasn't "arbitrary", it was an overreach. I don't have information if it's an overreach in this case, nobody does).
A conditional green card is granted for 2 years to somebody who's been married for less than 2 years, to prevent immigration fraud through fake marriages. He came on a student visa in 2022, met his wife and got married, got his green card in 2023. Hence, he was married for less than 2 years by that time (if he were married prior to 2022, then he wouldn't need a student visa). So his green card is conditional, due to expire in 2025. Simple logic. https://www.osasimmigration.com/conditional-green-card/
Thanks for the link but I use my own brain, read original documents and procedures, independent blogs and don't consume "explanations" from legacy media. Why were his immigration privileges revoked by the ICE? Because they can, they don't need any executive order (the order was for them to come). They don't need to provide accusations and no burden of proof, it's not a criminal case. Nothing to do with constitutional attorneys and law professors, he needs a good practicing immigration attorney. And nobody knows what they have on him or it's an overreach. If he's connected to terrorists and reveals information about them, we will never know it, regardless if he stays or "deported" receiving documents and a green card under a different name.
FYI, I had various visas and a green card for 15 years before becoming a citizen, having processed most of the paperwork myself and also have learned from others, so I know quite a bit. I used to give free immigration advice online. Confusion created by the legacy media won't work on me.
I would be way more concerned about surveillance than what useless media are trying to spin. Universities fail to educate students to make them resilient to jihadist propaganda, fail to timely discipline them for disorderly conduct. But if you've got a hammer, it's easier to install cameras on campus and monitor speech online.
What rhetoric? What has it to with protests? (THIS is rhetoric, linking it to protests). And don't give me more links to your beloved rhetoric instead of facts, I'm going to laugh at you. I don't consume word salads.
No, it doesn't instruct to deport students participating in protests. Section 3(e) instructs heads of 3 federal agencies to ensure that universities identify and report activities by foreign students and stuff consistent with grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3), security (inadmissible students wouldn't have gotten student visas in the first place if they didn't lie on their forms); leading to investigations and possible removal under applicable law. So, before the ICE agents showed up, the school reported Khalil and he was investigated. Nobody would report what the investigation has discovered, but the range of inadmissibility is very broad, ranging from terrorist activities to representing a terrorist organization to endorsing terrorism. It would've been sufficient to distribute HAMAS literature as some "protesters" reportedly did. And somebody's immigration privileges can be always revoked for lying on immigration forms.
Ironically, Khalil wouldn't be even identified if he didn't fail to update his immigration status with the school. Who paid for his education and now attorneys?
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 itтАЩs 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 тАЬ US personтАЭ . He gets many rights (first amendment) but not all. Interesting post from previous assistant US district attorney Andy McCarthy. Sorry, donтАЩt know where I read his podcast, but itтАЩs out there.
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!
"National security threat" is absolutely arbitrary. The government has been using that dubious rhetoric since at least the Cold War (then ramped up again after 9/11) to justify many actions that the public would not consent to if it knew the real reasons.
Khalil holds a regular (not conditional) green card because he married a US citizen, which means he has lawful permanent residency and the right to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely.
Here's a good overview of the situation: https://time.com/7266683/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-green-card/
So, the riots on campus and Hamas didn't happen, right? Since everything is just "arbitrary", you can always say it didn't happen. He can argue in front of the immigration judge that he wasn't involved, he can't argue it's arbitrary. (The 9/11 aftermath wasn't "arbitrary", it was an overreach. I don't have information if it's an overreach in this case, nobody does).
A conditional green card is granted for 2 years to somebody who's been married for less than 2 years, to prevent immigration fraud through fake marriages. He came on a student visa in 2022, met his wife and got married, got his green card in 2023. Hence, he was married for less than 2 years by that time (if he were married prior to 2022, then he wouldn't need a student visa). So his green card is conditional, due to expire in 2025. Simple logic. https://www.osasimmigration.com/conditional-green-card/
Thanks for the link but I use my own brain, read original documents and procedures, independent blogs and don't consume "explanations" from legacy media. Why were his immigration privileges revoked by the ICE? Because they can, they don't need any executive order (the order was for them to come). They don't need to provide accusations and no burden of proof, it's not a criminal case. Nothing to do with constitutional attorneys and law professors, he needs a good practicing immigration attorney. And nobody knows what they have on him or it's an overreach. If he's connected to terrorists and reveals information about them, we will never know it, regardless if he stays or "deported" receiving documents and a green card under a different name.
FYI, I had various visas and a green card for 15 years before becoming a citizen, having processed most of the paperwork myself and also have learned from others, so I know quite a bit. I used to give free immigration advice online. Confusion created by the legacy media won't work on me.
"Since everything is just 'arbitrary' you can always say it didn't happen." -- Evidently, I should have been more clear. The government's "national security threat" RHETORIC is arbitrary. The campus protests were NOT true national security threats; even the ones resulting in property damage and physical violence; which btw were very MINIMAL. https://acleddata.com/2024/05/10/nearly-all-gaza-campus-protests-in-the-us-have-been-peaceful-study-finds-the-guardian/
As for his deportation status, we'll all just need to wait and see what the immigration courts decide.
I would be way more concerned about surveillance than what useless media are trying to spin. Universities fail to educate students to make them resilient to jihadist propaganda, fail to timely discipline them for disorderly conduct. But if you've got a hammer, it's easier to install cameras on campus and monitor speech online.
What rhetoric? What has it to with protests? (THIS is rhetoric, linking it to protests). And don't give me more links to your beloved rhetoric instead of facts, I'm going to laugh at you. I don't consume word salads.
Here is the executive order in question (useless media failing to provide this link) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02230/additional-measures-to-combat-anti-semitism
No, it doesn't instruct to deport students participating in protests. Section 3(e) instructs heads of 3 federal agencies to ensure that universities identify and report activities by foreign students and stuff consistent with grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3), security (inadmissible students wouldn't have gotten student visas in the first place if they didn't lie on their forms); leading to investigations and possible removal under applicable law. So, before the ICE agents showed up, the school reported Khalil and he was investigated. Nobody would report what the investigation has discovered, but the range of inadmissibility is very broad, ranging from terrorist activities to representing a terrorist organization to endorsing terrorism. It would've been sufficient to distribute HAMAS literature as some "protesters" reportedly did. And somebody's immigration privileges can be always revoked for lying on immigration forms.
Ironically, Khalil wouldn't be even identified if he didn't fail to update his immigration status with the school. Who paid for his education and now attorneys?
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 itтАЩs 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 тАЬ US personтАЭ . He gets many rights (first amendment) but not all. Interesting post from previous assistant US district attorney Andy McCarthy. Sorry, donтАЩt know where I read his podcast, but itтАЩs out there.