319 Comments
User's avatar
Allison Brennan's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

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?

Expand full comment
Mimi's avatar

100% accurate!

Expand full comment
Brian Bishop's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Impossible to argue against your point. Thank you

Expand full comment
FatherOBlivion's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

He’s no longer a student. He graduated, so why is he even involved with campus activities ?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Actually, they did expel him. For one day;then rescinded the expulsion. Who knows why…

Expand full comment
Roderick Bell's avatar

@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?

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
P.S.'s avatar

Why bother when they can just ship him out?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Selenti's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
P.S.'s avatar

Well not sure that he actually has all the rights a citizen has, but he probably does need a trial.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

“ 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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Uh, because extortion is illegal?

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

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?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Some that say that may be right.

Expand full comment
Mimi's avatar

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!

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Angak's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Thanks to groups like AIPAC, ADL, SPLC and others, the entire US government is Israel's b***h.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

This is likely to increase antisemitism.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

It already has. #CounterProductive #UnintendedConsequences

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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”

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

What do you mean by "this will not go down well in the long run?"

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

Angak means that once the tipping point is reached and Muzzies are in complete controller, the non-muzzles will be3 hunted down and executed.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

There is some historical significance to your words.

Expand full comment
Cheryl Knapp's avatar

Why single out Trump?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Because he's the current Israel puppet-in-chief.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

And how much control do "they" have over government. Be specific, with cogent examples.

Expand full comment
flipshod's avatar

You don't get to just announce that someone has committed a crime and then proceed forthwith as if it's true.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

"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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

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/

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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….

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

The Palmer Raids and other Wilsonian excesses were a low point in the US for a long time. "National Security" run amok.

Expand full comment
Mark Donaghey's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Mark Leone's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

Again, it is not a free speech arrest. He committed terrorist acts / it will be about ‘national security’.

Expand full comment
Theresa Thompson's avatar

"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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

I just wrote a long comment, those should be called riots, not protests. Terrorism meet the Coddling of the American mind.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Amen

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

That’s exactly what this guy is doing. Extortion.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

This bigot can say whatever he wants... Up to the point of inciting violence, which he has done. If someone showed up to campus in a white hood and a burning cross saying we should hang black people from trees, I wonder how different the reaction would have been. As for his deportation, if he's got a green card, not sure how you pull that off or even if we should. That said, I don't want to import more bigots like this guy.

Expand full comment
Orwell’s Rabbit's avatar

As a former green card holder (now naturalized citizen) I can tell you that that there are extensive provisions limiting one’s behavior during the period of your green card. Some of the limitations are reasonable; others seem capricious, but the information given to green card holders makes it very clear that their status in the US is somewhat tenuous.

Expand full comment
Nick Brown's avatar

Exactly. Big difference between being a citizen and non-citizen.

Expand full comment
@CLJ3's avatar

Right. It is this simple. And sure, protesting on college campuses is nothing new, going back to the '30's and so forth. But these protesters were CITIZENS.

Expand full comment
MoM's avatar

As a former green card holder and now citizen I can attest to this.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

Bigotry is perfectly legal. Are you so sure you’re not bigoted in some way? If he has broken the law, that’s a separate issue. So far, he’s been kidnapped snd held against his constitutional privileges, (which protect all people, not just citizens). He has not been charged with any crime.

Glenn Greenwald explains all of this very clearly on yesterday’s program.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

"Kidnapped"? Come on. I subscribe to Glenn but skip all the "Israel is evil Hamas is good" episodes, which now is about 80% of his programming.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

When a free person is taken by force from his family, held indefinitely without charge in a secret location, without access to legal aid, then kidnapping is probably the most appropriate description I can think of.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

kidnapped you say? who kidnapped him? what is strange about this kidnapping is that he has 19 attorneys and most kidnapping usually doesn't involve any attorneys.

Kidnapping? Are you sure?

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

He was seized by government agents, without being charged with an actual crime, and transported 1000 miles away to a facility in Louisiana. It took some time before his wife and lawyers even knew where he was. If this was done to you, or a family member, yeah, I think you'd consider it kidnapping.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Seized? Or kidnapped? If he was kidnapped, it would be the first kidnapping in world history where the kidnapped person has 19 lawyers. BTW, how did he get 19 lawyers? Who is paying that legal bill? Hmmmm.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Obama did away with Habeas Corpus (protected by the Fifth Amendment at one time) in favor of indefinite detention. He and the government were sued by Chris Hedges and others, but the case dismissed for "lack of standing."

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Maybe his 19 attorneys kidnapped him

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Please, my heart breaks for my imprisoned brother.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

If you don’t think the murder of Hind Rajab, or the forced, government approved, sodomization of captives, or withholding medicines so the children have to undergo amputations without anesthesia. or the destruction of an entire culture, are evil, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

And if you support terrorists who strangle child hostages (Ariel and Kfir Bibas), then we have nothing more to discuss.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Finally. Will you please shut up? Thanks

Expand full comment
Beeswax's avatar

I hope you don't mind if I borrow this pithy reply for future use.

Expand full comment
The Upright Man.'s avatar

So, you are saying that Hamas' activities on 10/7 are evil?

I can agree with that!

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Wow, did you just get off the range here? Like zero to 60

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No it's not. Glenn provides the OTHER side of the Israel-biased story, which you just don't like. Perhaps if you didn't outright dismiss that additional information, you might have a more nuanced and contextualized view on the matter.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

lol, so glenn is hamas? that is the other side of the story.

Expand full comment
Zach Miller's avatar

That's smart @MG, you wouldn't want to open yourself up to alternate views.

Expand full comment
Robert Swanson's avatar

I used to subscribe to Glenn and liked a lot of his content, but he lost me with his constant haranguing of Israel. It became too repetitive.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

he’s been kidnapped—he's registered in the DHS database

held against his constitutional privileges—his lawyers were in court on his behalf today

He has not been charged with any crime—

Here is what the Admin said yesterday:

Mahmoud Khalil is being deported under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for the removal of any 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.”

On Tuesday, a White House official said in comments to The Free Press…Khalil is a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States,” the official said. “The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law.”

This is not a free speech issue, the admin is claiming this is a national security issue, which is well within established precedent. (Khalil also most likely lied on his Green Card form in re support for designated terror orgs.)

Also, Glenn Greenwald hates Israel in that passionate way only Leftist Jews can. He is not an unbiased or even fair source here.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

"The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law." FULL STOP. Anything beyond that means he's being prosecuted for constitutionally protected rights. Anytime any government official claims "national security interests," you know they're lying about evil acts. As to being a threat to the "foreign policy of the United States," piss on that. I've spent my entire adult life protesting the "foreign policy" du jour of the Unites States, which is my patriotic right as an engaged citizen. Green Card holders have the same speech rights. You think this is all fine, because the industrial scale slaughter visible to the entire world doesn't bother your conscience. There are fanatical, nutcase Israeli citizens among the faculty and student body at Columbia who aren't being threatened with deportation, even though they've committed acts of intimidation and violence against students, including spraying them with the same noxious "skunk spray" the Israeli Occupation Forces use against Palestinians. This is a clear case of viewpoint discrimination, all in defense of genocide. Congratulations. You're among the Good Germans of our times.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

100%. These pro-Israel folks are so blinded by their bias (and, in many cases, racism toward Arabs), they can't recognize they've been propagandized by the hasbara.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Some of them have described Palestinians as "sub-human," and one lady told me that every person in Gaza over the age of 4 was a terrorist, so she didn't care what happened to any of them.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

I've often seen comments like that, too. It's astounding how effective the hasbara is at fomenting hate.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Gulag Jim. Fits on a bumper sticker.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

What the fuck are you talking about? Make a reasonable argument, or go away.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Sorry. I used a big word and confused you. Just have someone literate read it to you slowly. You got this my man!

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

He was registered in the DHS database in the wrong location. His lawyers filed habeas corpus paperwork in New York, because the database said that's where he was. But he'd been moved - without notification to his wife or legal representatives - to New Jersey without the database being changed. Next, he's shipped to freaking Louisiana, 1000 miles from his wife and legal representatives. Why? Why not keep him in NYC? Still, no actual charges filed against him. Kidnapping or disappearance, call it what you wish. Denial of swift access to legal representation. And the Orwellian "this is a national security issue," which can mean anything and everything. Read that key sentence again: White House official says "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law." In other words, they're just making shit up. Which, if allowed to stand, threatens the rights of all of us. All a "White House official" has to do is utter the magic incantation "national security issue," and poof! the Bill of Rights disappears.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

As I noted above "Obama did away with Habeas Corpus (protected by the Fifth Amendment at one time) in favor of indefinite detention. He and the government were sued by Chris Hedges and others, but the case dismissed for "lack of standing."

That ship has sailed! The Bill of Rights was a great ideal, but not functional in a security state where all rights can be dismissed with a casual, unquestionable "National Security!" Look at the First Amendment, January 6th Trumpers, and compare to Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" Letter (like Matt Taibbi, Jefferson was a great writer but not much of a speaker): laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/tree-liberty

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

Sera 💯

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Re-read my first sentence. Try to focus.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

I focused on your first sentence. I also read down to your last sentence which is the one I replied to: “I don’t want to import bigots like this guy.” May I point out that accusing someone of bigotry without any evidence of it is, what’s the word? Bigotry. But thankfully, bigotry is not the basis for our legal system. Am I supposed to object to an imported bigot, but tolerate a homegrown one? And the larger point is that protesting mass murder is not bigotry. I learned that long ago when my own government was engaged in it, and I was similarly harassed by people who supported that particular mass murder.

I was kicked out of school, arrested, beaten up, and more, for protesting. And today, my whole generation has been exonerated, as I deeply believe the protesters at Columbia and around the world will someday be.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

Do you think free speech includes property damage in the millions? Harming school employees?

I can only guess your experience was in the past, because today these feckless schools encourage this by giving free room and board to non-students, and IF there is a punishment, it is quickly retracted.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it addresses your question as well:

“I’ve heard it stressed that the 1st Amendment protects all people on American soil from interdiction of speech based on the content of that speech. This never addresses the manner of the speech. I can say pretty much what I wish, but obviously saying it at full volume at midnight or painting it on your forehead, is another matter. It’s an error to conflate the content of speech with the manner of its delivery.”

Expand full comment
Roderick Bell's avatar

@Sera - "It’s an error to conflate the content of speech with the manner of its delivery.”

Sera, your too-pat analysis avoids the reality that protest speech is often quite intentionally delivered in a provocative form, with the intention of daring authorities to cross the line from keeping public order to suppressing protected speech.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

You avoided answering the question.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Didn’t you just accuse someone on here of perhaps bigotry?

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Yes, bigots suck and we shouldn't import more of them. How controversial.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Then how about we put Professor Shai Davidai, fanatical nutcase Israeli prof at Columbia, on the first plane back home? He's as bigoted as they come. Maybe round up and charge those at Columbia (some of them likely Israelis, too) who sprayed protesters with the noxious "skunk spray" used by the Israeli Occupation Forces against Palestinians? While we're at it, there's video footage of the violent assaults committed by Israel supporters against protesters at UCLA. No actions taken against those thugs yet. Because they're YOUR thugs.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Jim, take a breath. The good news is that at tomorrow's encampment, uncle Soros will still be providing you with a catered lunch. Don't forget your hammers and video cameras so you can break more windows and film it and then say the zionists did it. Jim, you're such a card.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Not true, but nice try. He has been remanded to custody for violating his green card status . Not a free speech issue. If greenwald is your basis for argument, come back later when you have something. You sound like those idiots in the demokrat party. Aoc comes to mind.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

I really like Glenn, but had to snooze him lately.

Expand full comment
Nick Brown's avatar

No, the Constitution applies to Americans. Non citizens are guests.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

It also applies to legal immigrants. Research better.

Expand full comment
Nick Brown's avatar

I'm perfectly capable of defining what's good and what is not. The "who gets to define bigotry" excuse is a cop out. It's how America got where it is, not defending THE TRUTH.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

Glenn Greenwald hates genocide. This is not unique to “leftist Jews”.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Glenn Greenwald hates israel, is ambivalent about Hamas and hates the idea of Israel defending itself. He has no ability to be rational on this topic, as he has covered one side of this war and ignored the other. On most other topics, Glenn is a rational reporter. On this topic, he is so journalistically compromised that his pretense of objectivity is laughable.

The nearest 'reporter' to Glenn on the topic of Israel is Candace Owens. Great company.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Excuse me, but there are a LOT of Jews who are appalled at the genocidal actions of this foreign state. It does not represent us, neither as Jews, nor as US citizens, and the sooner it gets cut off from US arms, funds, and diplomatic cover, the better the world will be. There is NO activity in support of Palestinian rights that doesn't get accused of being "antisemitic," because the Israel-Uber-Alles brigade deliberately conflates Judaism with the Israeli State. Perfectly peaceful calls for boycotts, sanctions, and divestment? Shock! Horror!! It's the next Holocaust!!! Meanwhile, Israel slaughters Palestinians on the regular, steals their land and water, demolishes their houses, and makes clear that there is no place for them in the Jewish ethno-state: it's leave, or die. It's not antisemitic to protest this. And oh, by the way, some of the very same buildings at Columbia where students sat in, or blockaded, had been the site of identical actions during the movement to end the US War on Vietnam. Students also organized against South African apartheid, with sit-ins, etc. And of course we have the history of the Civil Rights Movement in earlier decades, complete with much civil disobedience. Were we all "terrorists"?

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

You might distinguish between Jews and Zionists, some here are touchy about such nuances.

And while Judaism now seems the official protected religion of the US (in contradiction to the First Amendment), that's only in DC (where it matters), and a few other major cities. US Involvement in Israel as in Ukraine no longer seems supported by the majority of Americans.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

That's it? At least try to make up more creative stories around the Hamastan campfire tonight. What do you guys do once you've broken into buildings at the U? Oh right, you send out spokespeople that tell the world you're oppressed and need food brought to you. dude, you have to do better.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Oh, shove it. You and your genocide-supporting buddies are funded in the hundreds of millions of dollars by the Adelsons, Sabans, and all the AIPAC types. Outright bribery of the US political system, in the service of a foreign state. It's you who claim perpetual victimhood.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

I admire your commitment to mythology. Are those the tales you whisper lovingly in the unshowered ears of your hamastan lovers while you're smashing windows and demanding the public feeds you for free. Or are you still on parental welfare?

Expand full comment
MR's avatar

You are absolutely right in your assessment of Glenn’s pathological hatred of Israel. It is not limited to the current war; it is longstanding seems like a mental illness.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

The mental illness is believing Glenn has a "pathological hatred of Israel." Criticizing the zionist policies of Israel's government, as he does with ANY government, including the US, is absolutely justified.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Zionist policies of Israel.... Lol, well yes. Might be The dumbest thing you've splattered, and that's saying something.

Expand full comment
Nick Brown's avatar

Israel sure sucks at genocide

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

But it's excellent at ethnic cleansing.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Speaking of hygiene, what is your personal best for non-showering hamastan days at the encampment?

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

That’s incorrect

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

How so? Ethnic cleansing means displacement of an ethnic group.

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

Especially since a healthy percentage of its population is Arab..

Expand full comment
Bunker Bob's avatar

Just a couple of notes - For non-citizens (even green card holders), constitutional protections are privileges (it's more about the obligations on the government than the benefit of the person). For citizens, they are rights. Deportation is *always* an option until citizenship is obtained (even for green card holders). It's a simple question of what was done in the first place to warrant action. Standing in place and protesting (regardless of the cause) is one thing, and even if I disagree, I don't object to people doing that. Not allowing people to enter or pass through because of a perceived bias is something entirely different. That's disruption, and should not be tolerated.

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

Hamas and pro-Hamas agitators are enemies. We don’t have to take enemies as citizens.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Bullshit. "Enemies" of whom? Declared to be terrorists by the same government that considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Israel has had several Prime Ministers who were first-class terrorists, for real. Israel has one right now.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

Israel was founded, and has been led, by an unending string of terrorists. They are terrorists by any definition and were called that from the very beginning, by Einstein, Arendt, and everyone in my family and circle who were present at the founding of that (so called) country.

TO THE EDITORS OF NEW YORK TIMES:

“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.” Signed by Einstein, Arendt and others, 1948.

Expand full comment
MoM's avatar

Am Yisrael Chai.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

I heard it's "Hammer Day" at the encampment. Bring a hammer from home and Soros will autograph it!

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

What's the encampment special at tomorrow's catered lunch?

Expand full comment
Zach Miller's avatar

@KAM why is Hamas an enemy of the US?

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Didn't they attack the USS Liberty back in 1967 when the Israelis were butchering Egyptian POWs?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

You're joking, right?

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

And pro Palestinian professors that randomly cancel all classes, just willy nilly giving every student an A on their mid term because classes are canceled. As a parent, not sure that would be supported for my generous $90,000 a year tuition. So theirs a bunch of shit to unpack at Columbia, I’m happy funding got pulled. With the private schools and their massive endowments, why the hell are they getting funding anyway ?

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

I've seen no evidence that he incited anyone to violence. Where did you get that idea?

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

Nothing says we have to add more bigots and anti-American agitators to our citizenry. He can leave now.

Expand full comment
Mike's avatar

To me, it comes down entirely to what he actually did. As he noted late in the interview, Rubio should he clear what he did and why he’s being detained/threatened with deportation.

If he SAID nasty stuff — which he seems clearly to have done — that’s protected behavior. And therefore not worthy of revoking his legal resident status here.

If he DID nasty stuff — such as committed vandalism, harassment of students, if not actually violence — then he’s violated the law and therefore terms of his legal residence here.

Seems pretty straightforward. The government should make clear what the basis is. By being less-than-transparent, they’re undermining their own efforts.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

Everyone is missing the point.

He's a Green Card holder.

When he applied for his Green Card, he stipulated he wasn't a member of a terrorist organization. Hamas is a State Department designated terrorist organization. Has been since 1997.

Thus, his Green Card is null,and he can be booted for a crime as simple as not leaving an area as ordered by police.

This is not a free speech issue.

Expand full comment
Melinda Barnes's avatar

I missed the part where there is evidence that he is a member of Hamas vs. saying things that can be interpreted as "aligned" with Hamas.

Expand full comment
Andrew Dolgin's avatar

He’s not a member of Hamas so this is retarded

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

I’m not sure people in the US legally or not, carry around a card that states their membership in Hamas or any other terriost group. They sort of keep that quiet . Until, they get exposed or caught

Expand full comment
Andrew Dolgin's avatar

So in other words you have no evidence for him being a member of Hamas other than your Jewish supremacist instinctual hatred of Muslims who oppose Israel?

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

You support Hamas, right?

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

The form doesn't actually require to be a member, but is quite broad "incited", "assisted", "intend to assist". Handing in Hamas brochures would do.

Expand full comment
Melinda Barnes's avatar

I also missed the part where he handed out Hamas brochures.

Expand full comment
Julia's avatar

Reportedly, those were distributed at protests he attended. If he didn't do anything of this sort, he can argue with an immigration judge.

What puzzles me is the pivot from working on education opportunities for Syrian children (his Columbia degree would be helpful working in non-profits) to leading this mess. Maybe, he was radicalized by Columbia. Very ironic.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

Julia is correct.

On both the requirement and what's on his literature.

If you missed it, that's on you.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Melinda's point is there's no evidence.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

There's video of him handing out the form.

Again, please review all sources before spouting an opinion.

Hint: MSNBC and The NY Times tell you the news you want to hear as much as Fox does. You need to go between sources.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Sounds like Hunters gun application. Oh, but I forgot he got pardoned. And yes, he doesn’t have to pay taxes.

Expand full comment
bart9349's avatar

Mike: Stop making sense. It upsets the rabid partisans.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Rabid zionists, more specifically.

Expand full comment
FatherOBlivion's avatar

Thanks for this, Matt. We can always count in FIRE for rational and informative takes on these topics.

Expand full comment
Alison Cipriani's avatar

FIRE has never once defended a Jewish student. They have their own slant on things but legally the US has every right to deport him.

Expand full comment
FatherOBlivion's avatar

They aren't perfect, but since the ACLU has completely failed, they're the best we got.

Expand full comment
Dave Osborne's avatar

Well, they haven’t been perfect lately. A big issue for them

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

That's the issue, isn't it? Can the US government deport a non-citizen with a green card for a crime? This Hamas supporter is on video calling for the beheading of Zionists. That's an incitement of violence. But what laws can a green card holder break to get themselves deported? Public intoxication? Assault?

Expand full comment
Jozseph Schultz's avatar

Mahmoud is married to a US citizen, who is eight months pregnant. Tens of thousands are dead through US supported violence. Hard to imagine how protesting this is a crime, even if blame is wrongly apportioned. Authorities claim no crime was committed by Mahmoud. Is this the Trump/Vance who called out Europe for not living up to its ideals? I'm so confused.

Expand full comment
Sniper's avatar

Pregnant wife does not absolve anyone from being terrorist scum. She can go to Gaza with him.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

This is making Vance look like a hypocrite, after castigating Europeans for their suppression of free speech.

Expand full comment
Chip Meyer's avatar

There is a HUGE difference between free speech rights for a citizen, versus those for a green card holder. To even get a green card you have to sign a document certifying that you have not, and will not, even associate with people involved in violent protests or that incur property damage. Like it or not, Khalil signed that agreement. And he clearly is associated with people that commit violence and property damage. There is no First Amendment right available to this discussion. He lied on his application. Deport him.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Agreed. When he did he come here, 2022? Is that correct? He has been a busy bee since then. Student, then husband, soon father. And apparently mouthpiece/negotiator between university administration and Hamas-garbed "students" who intimidate Americans, trespass, and confront police.

Does one come here with a green card? Or do you arrive with a visa and elevate to a green card? Obviously, he has a lot of spare time to march, march, march. Does one make minimum wage for that? Maybe, as a spokesperson, you get paid extra --- by somebody.

Expand full comment
Chip Meyer's avatar

Heh. Probably gets paid. To answer: You come in on a Visa, in his case, a student visa. You can apply for a green card after you are here.

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

We don’t have to make citizens of terrorist-supporting antisemites.

Expand full comment
Alison Cipriani's avatar

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wSvvN3qkslvK0GKXUNPpr?si=84bcd086af8142ea

This is not about free speech. It's about the fact that he is a guest in this country and if he hates it so much he should be expelled

Expand full comment
ambrosia's avatar

Surprising to see such primitive, low-brow comments on this substack.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

yes, all our most enlightened minds hate Jews and love Islamists.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Bit of a sweeping generalization. Maybe "MOST of our most enlightened minds hate Jews and love Islamists"

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

lolol

Expand full comment
Vanessa's avatar

Damn you were quick to prove them right

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

You talk like a bigot.

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

Absolutely. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Good thing he doesn't hate the US then.

Expand full comment
Max Dublin's avatar

I found this interview to be rather narrowly confined and frankly a bit precious. Let's put it into a broader context and have a look at it. During the summer of "mostly peaceful protests" the slogan of the protestors was "violence is speech and silence is violence." Related to that, with all the shoplifting that was going on and generally the billions of dollars of damage were other slogans such as "it's only property" and "not theft but reparations." So these were the new norms that activists were trying to impose on society and rather effectively I might add. All of a sudden in some places shoplifting for under $1000. was dismissed, ignored forgiven. I think of myself as a free speech absolutist but once it gets physical it's no longer speech. And physical includes not just blocking a persons free passage in a public space but seriously getting into someone's face as was the case with that native American dude and the Covington kid who in the face of that was just trying to keep his composure. In Toronto where I live pro-Hamas protestors for days on end blocked a road in a Jewish neighbourhood and the authorities did nothing about it. In London Muslims by the thousands, their numbers increasing every year, took over a public park to pray and the authorities did nothing about it. This is all about power, and politics for good or evil is all about power. And let us bear in mind that the pro-Hamas protests broke out the day after October 7 and before Israel began any sort of counter-offensive. Nor should we forget that "global intifada" protests were and are not spontaneous but well-organized and likely foreign funded. Qatar, which along with Iran is the biggest foreign funder of terrorism in the Middle East funding not only Hamas but Al Quaeda, ISIS and so on and Qatar has donated 5 billion dollars to American universities and surely this must have influenced the universities' handling of the protests. So it's not just about free speech and it's not just about immigration law. Many moons ago I was a foreign student in the U.S. and--I'm dating myself--was a marshall working for the Quakers in one of those million person anti-Vietnam protests in Washington. At one point while we were gathered in the park and listening to anti-war speeches a bunch of Trotskyites with bullhorns encircled the crowd shouting something like "link arms, link arms, no one leaves, no one leaves" in preparation for seizing the podium and making their own particular kind of speeches. So we marshalls quickly put our heads together, formed a wedge and broke through the encirclement of linked arms--it was easy to do btw because they were all pretty scrawny and pale of face and cowards in the face of any sort of pushback--and created an aisle in the crowd and announced this is the way out if anyone wants to leave. This is part of the big picture and this is what the Trump administration is trying to deal with. The professors are getting money not just from the feds but from foreign sources that are adversaries not only of Israel but of America and the students are here not only to learn but to subvert. This is not just about little Kahlid and his student visa and green card. If all that we do is look at this through the lens of the First Amendment we are missing the forest for the trees.

Expand full comment
MR's avatar

Thank you. You see the whole picture that the “free speech” argument deliberately misses. Do people like Glenn Greenwald really think these movements/Hamasniks will spare him?

Expand full comment
Curious and Concerned's avatar

Matt, I truly appreciate you covering topics that the "news" industry neglects. You are a treasure.

Expand full comment
john Galt's avatar

Khalil committed crimes. The videos are very clear. This is not a speech issue its about breaking several laws. I used to donate to FIRE until some of their opinions were so anti-Israel, I cancelled. Frankly, I'm shocked you think Tyler makes some good points. It seems you align with Glenn Greenwald on this as he asserts free speech is never allowed anyone who criticizes Israel and has completely ignored Khalil's many incites to violence against Jews etc. Pretty disappointed that you gave this guy a platform. If the students were Black you and Glenn Greenwald would be apoplectic.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

FIRE works to defend our constitutional rights. Which of their opinions have been anti-Israel?

Expand full comment
Mark Paul's avatar

I love FIRE, but to a free speech hammer every possible issue that even comes close to touching it becomes a nail.

Expand full comment
Al Gonzalez's avatar

The University is complicit. If he broke the law the NYPD should have been called. Why has he never been arrested? When he said “I will stop breaking the law if” that was their opportunity. This would have made the deportation much clearer. At this point, as a former student his disruptive behavior should ban him from the campus, but this is what we get when we show weakness to people like Khalil that think they are entitled to make demands of an elite Ivy League University, which is supposed to be a privilege to attend.

I still do not understand why the taxpayer gives money to a private elitist University that has an endowment in the millions.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Besides this comment thread, where have you heard he made demands of Columbia?

Expand full comment
Al Gonzalez's avatar

It was reported previously.

Expand full comment
Al Gonzalez's avatar

He was the designated spokesperson for the protestors when they occupied a building and their demands were for Columbia to fully divest from any Israel investments.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

This article entirely misses the point.

He's a Green Card holder. When he applied for his Green Card, he stipulated he wasn't a member of a terrorist organization. Hamas is a State Department designated terrorist organization.

Thus, his Green Card is null,and he can be booted for a crime as simple as not leaving an area as ordered by police.

This is not a free speech issue.

And anyone not saying good riddance to this POS needs to be on the plane beside him to Syria.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Please cite your sources that say he's a member of Hamas.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

JC.

The leftist spouting "sources." 🤦🏼‍♂️

I'm not your Google bitch. Do the research or believe what you want.

I don't care what you think and neither does the judge making the decision.

🖕🏻

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

If you want to be believed and taken seriously, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

I don't care what you believe or take seriously, marxist.

We're long past that point.

Know what I do want from you?

Your death.

🖕🏻

Expand full comment
bart9349's avatar

Thank you for the interview, Matt. I will have to read it again to fully understand FIRE's perspective.

I am surprised, however, that no one asks how Mr. Mahmoud financed his education at Columbia. Getting an education at Columbia is both very competitive and expensive. (I assume he gets a small stipend from the Columbia, but it certainly doesn't cover all the expenses.) I guess if he has graduated, he no longer receives that stipend. So how does he fund his protests?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Have you tried researching to answer your own questions?

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

I’ve heard it stressed that the 1st Amendment protects all people on American soil from interdiction of speech based on the content of that speech. This never addresses the manner of the speech. I can say pretty much what I wish, but obviously saying it at full volume at midnight or painting it on your forehead, is another matter. It’s an error to conflate the content of speech with the manner of its delivery.

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

Also a mistake to think we have to grant citizenship to people who hate us.

Expand full comment
MuchoMany's avatar

"We are westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western Civilization"

Allowing people like this to coexist in and benefit from our society while they actively try to tear the whole thing down is the perfect distillation of the end of the liberal moment.

See ya never, Mahmoud.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

How exactly did he "actively try to tear the whole thing down?" Be specific.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Pfftt!

Good luck getting a coherent response to that.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Yeah, I'd be very surprised to get one.

Expand full comment