BREAKING: Columbia anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, judge rules

It’s gone way beyond “protesting the government.” It is spreading LIES rooted in antisemitism and resulting in violence against Jews.

The rest of your post was the one-sided approach we are getting, ignoring that the Palestinians started the whole thing on Oct 7 - and, unlike Israel, set about to hunt down and find and torture to death every Jew they could, in the most agaonizing ways.

There is no moral equivalence, and your hostility toward Jews is obvious.

As unfortunate and disgusting as that is, hate speech isn't illegal in this country. Some idiots are always going to show up to a protest. What happened to there are very fine people on both sides? Another thing to note is that the Trump administration has never accused Mahmoud, the most infamous person to come out from all this,of hate speech, when they have zero problems lying any chance they get.

So because Hamas committed a terrorist act, that means that's an excuse for the genocide of ALL Palestinians? The nazis would have absolutely adored you Lisa. So many of you out yourselves on here every day. lol
 
As unfortunate and disgusting as that is, hate speech isn't illegal in this country. Some idiots are always going to show up to a protest. What happened to there are very fine people on both sides? Another thing to note is that the Trump administration has never accused Mahmoud, the most infamous person to come out from all this,of hate speech, when they have zero problems lying any chance they get.

So because Hamas committed a terrorist act, that means that's an excuse for the genocide of ALL Palestinians? The nazis would have absolutely adored you Lisa. So many of you out yourselves on here every day. lol
What a disgusting thing to say to a Jew. You leftists are sick,
 
It's not until it incites violence.

When you start demanding revolution and "intifada," you are acting to incite violence. Intifadas and revolutions are equated with armed uprisings.
I agree. Calling for violence is not protected speech.

However, most of those who have had visas or green cards yanked don’t seem to have called for violence, including to subject of this thread.
 
However, most of those who have had visas or green cards yanked don’t seem to have called for violence, including to subject of this thread.
Until I know what Khalil did or said to warrant his treatment, I can't make a judgment.

You would be well served not to make hasty judgments.

When any student calls for revolution or intifada, they deserve to be expelled. You don't get to call for armed uprisings and expect to keep your visa or anything you've earned at that school. When your words lead to the mistreatment of another ethnic group, or in the case of that couple in DC, murder, your rights to say those words should be curtailed and you severely punished under maximum penalty of law.

Free speech has limits, very far outer limits, but limits nonetheless. Sentiment spreads like a contagion, and when it reaches one unable to withstand the urge to act on it, you see what happens in DC.
 
Last edited:
Until I know what Khalil did or said to warrant his treatment, I can't make a judgment.

That is just the issue TK. No one can come up with anything. Even the government. If there was anything don’t you think they’d have shown it to bolster their case?

You would be well served not to make hasty judgments.

I’m not, I’m basing this on a complete inability to find a single thing out there beyond allegations. That is not a hasty judgement my friend.
When any student calls for revolution or intifada, they deserve to be expelled.
Sure, I agree.

Did he?


You don't get to call for armed uprisings and expect to keep your visa or anything you've earned at that school.
Absolutely agree.

Did he?



When your words lead to the mistreatment of another ethnic group, or in the case of that couple in DC, murder, your rights to say those words should be curtailed.


Of course. But you need to be careful here.

If he was saying anything like Jews are to blame, go after the Jews or any number of related anti-semitic attacks that directly inspire violence then that is not protected speech or desired.

But what about opposing the war in Gaza?
Or calling for the university to disinvest from Israeli businesses?


Free speech has limits. Broad limits, but limits nonetheless.
Agree, and those limits are defined with a high bar: libel, slander, calls for violence.
 
But what about opposing the war in Gaza?
Or calling for the university to disinvest from Israeli businesses?
I don't mind that too much.

But when it reaches "free, free Palestine, there is only one solution, intifada revolution" levels, then that's where we have a problem.

And if you're keen, the words "there is only one solution" are alluding to Hitler's "Final Solution." We all know what happened there.

 
Last edited:
That remains to be seen. We don't have the evidence, the DHS and DOJ do.
Do they?

Two points:

They have yet show it, including to the courts.
They are now looking for any other reason to support revoking his green card.

Do you see how wrong this is? You don’t arrest someone and then scramble to try to find other reasons to support the arrest when it falls flat.
 
They have yet show it, including to the courts.
They are now looking for any other reason to support revoking his green card.
First point would need a link.

Second point also requires a link.

I can't reprove your claims because I can't find links either.
 
I don't mind that too much.

But when it reaches "free, free Palestine, there is only one solution, intifada revolution" levels, then that's where we have a problem.

I agree…yet, there is no evidence he said or posted anything to that effect.


And if you're keen, the words "there is only one solution" are alluding to Hitler's "Final Solution." We all know what happened there.
I think that depends on the context in which it is said.
 
Do you see how wrong this is? You don’t arrest someone and then scramble to try to find other reasons to support the arrest when it falls flat.
From my vantage point, there is neither evidence for or against at this point.

The government's reticence is problematic.
 
I agree…yet, there is no evidence he said or posted anything to that effect.



I think that depends on the context in which it is said.
In the context in which it is said, it clearly refers to the ethnic state of Israel, and when the word "solution" is said along with it, I can only assume that it is alluding to the genocide of Jews.

I am a student of history. The gravitas of the word "solution" when it comes to socio-political action is inescapable.
 
I can’t find anything

Write the judge.

I am sure they will take your POV and change their mind.

After all, as a member of the left....we just know YOU ARE RIGHT. You always are.

Except you are not.

Who really cares what you found or didn't find.
 
:dunno:

I can’t find anything showing that is what he called for nor has the government provided any specific evidence that he ever called for violence or to support Hamas.

What I’ve read states he supported disinvestment of businesses in Israel.

Since they couldn’t show any evidence that Khalil called for violence they kept changing the case trying to find something deportable. This isn’t about anything he has actually done, it is about free speech.

Who cares?

He's outta here.

I am not going to Israel and badmouthing the government and then whining when they throw my ass in the Mediterranean.
 
First point would need a link.

Second point also requires a link.

I can't reprove your claims because I can't find links either.
Here is one link, an article, which, to summarize states that tbe only “evidence” is a statement from Rubio saying something to the effect that Khalid’s statements go against US foreign policy priorities.

Now that is broad and vague. If you agree with it, then you are essentially agreeing that any criticism of Israel’s conduct in this war is deportable.

Immigrants are the low hanging fruit (or the canary in the coal mine to use another common term)…they don’t have the strength of rights that citizens do. It is easy to drum up vague and subjective reasons to deport them.

But this guy has a green card, that means he went through a rigorous process to get it. So who is next?
 
Here is one link, an article, which, to summarize states that tbe only “evidence” is a statement from Rubio saying something to the effect that Khalid’s statements go against US foreign policy priorities.

Now that is broad and vague. If you agree with it, then you are essentially agreeing that any criticism of Israel’s conduct in this war is deportable.

Immigrants are the low hanging fruit (or the canary in the coal mine to use another common term)…they don’t have the strength of rights that citizens do. It is easy to drum up vague and subjective reasons to deport them.

But this guy has a green card, that means he went through a rigorous process to get it. So who is next?
I don't see links.

Did they post correctly?
 
In the context in which it is said, it clearly refers to the ethnic state of Israel, and when the word "solution" is said along with it, I can only assume that it is alluding to the genocide of Jews.

I am a student of history. The gravitas of the word "solution" when it comes to socio-political action is inescapable.
I did not know the context, you simply provided the phrase.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom