ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says

[otto105]

Well, I suggest you get off msdnc, the admin has made clear their position that his support for a terrorist organization and organizing attacks is a threat to our foreign policy position.

Yes, without any evidence of it. I say put in it court and have the government present its case.

 

[Rumpole]

Has he filed a habeas petition? No.

Will he not get a deportation hearing? This is a civil matter not a criminal, so there is limited due process and it’s an art 2 court

He literally just got picked up

Khalil’s legal team already secured a federal hearing, meaning the fight is happening exactly where it should--in court. No, he hasn’t filed a habeas petition, because he doesn’t need to. A judge has already put a hold on his deportation, and the case is moving forward. You’re acting like he was dumped into some legal black hole when, in reality, he’s getting the due process immigration law provides--limited, yes, but not nonexistent.

And yes, immigration proceedings may be civil, but they aren’t a slap on the wrist. People get detained, locked up, and fast-tracked out of the country, all without the full constitutional protections of a criminal trial. That’s the system, and if you think it’s fair game to deport green card holders for speech, you’d better be prepared for the constitutional challenge that follows.

The real issue isn’t whether he "just got picked up"--it’s whether the government can use immigration law to purge political opponents under the guise of national security. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you act like this is just business as usual, but it isn’t. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish because someone isn’t a citizen, and the Supreme Court has never settled whether you can deport someone purely for speech. If Khalil is the first test case, that answer is coming soon. Let’s see if you still feel so confident when the courts weigh in.

 

[Rumpole]

We’ll see…that may be Kabuki theatre…Remember, he’s not a citizen of this country, merely a green card holder. According to law State Dept can revoke that, and send him back.

I'll give you the same answer as I gave to Struth:

Khalil’s legal team already secured a federal hearing, meaning the fight is happening exactly where it should--in court. No, he hasn’t filed a habeas petition, because he doesn’t need to. A judge has already put a hold on his deportation, and the case is moving forward. You’re acting like he was dumped into some legal black hole when, in reality, he’s getting the due process immigration law provides--limited, yes, but not nonexistent.

And yes, immigration proceedings may be civil, but they aren’t a slap on the wrist. People get detained, locked up, and fast-tracked out of the country, all without the full constitutional protections of a criminal trial. That’s the system, and if you think it’s fair game to deport green card holders for speech, you’d better be prepared for the constitutional challenge that follows.

The real issue isn’t whether he "just got picked up"--it’s whether the government can use immigration law to purge political opponents under the guise of national security. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you act like this is just business as usual, but it isn’t. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish because someone isn’t a citizen, and the Supreme Court has never settled whether you can deport someone purely for speech. If Khalil is the first test case, that answer is coming soon. Let’s see if you still feel so confident when the courts weigh in.

 

[Rumpole]

You might want to read the law, the Sec of State has the authority to revoke a green card for someone that they reasonably believe pose serious threats to American foreign policy. Advocating for and supporting an organization designated a terrorist organization can do just that. He can’t be charged with a crime simply for advocating that support, but the law allows his privilege to be here, ie a green card, to be revoked

Try again

Okay, you want to take deeper dive, okay, let's do it:

See, it's a thorny constitutional question: Can noncitizens be deported purely for their speech? The answer, like most things in immigration law, is a mess of statutory authority, conflicting precedents, and untested constitutional limits.

The Law as Written

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) and § 1227(a)(4)(B), noncitizens who endorse or espouse terrorism can be denied entry or deported. “Terrorist activity” here is broadly defined--it’s not just planting bombs but even advocating for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Congress has always had wide latitude in keeping people out, as confirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel, but what about kicking them out once they’re already here?

The First Amendment Problem

Noncitizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights--Bridges v. Wixon made that clear. You can’t deport someone for saying things that a citizen could legally say. But then there’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, which upheld the deportation of Communist Party members, though it leaned on Dennis v. United States, back when we were jailing people for talking about communism.

More recent cases split. The Ninth Circuit in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno said First Amendment protections apply in deportation cases, while Price v. INS went the other way, deferring to Congress on immigration matters.

Selective Prosecution and Politics

The big red flag here is viewpoint discrimination. The executive order targets “Hamas sympathizers,” but not, say, someone cheering on Israeli bombings. The Supreme Court loathes viewpoint-based restrictions--Rosenberger v. Rector being a prime example. And while Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. says deportation proceedings can’t be challenged on selective prosecution grounds, it didn’t answer whether the government can initiate deportations purely for speech.

Where This Is Headed

Trump’s plan, if implemented, would almost certainly be challenged. The courts have never fully settled whether lawful residents can be deported just for speech, but in today’s First Amendment-friendly climate, the government’s odds don’t look great. If this goes to SCOTUS, it might finally force a ruling on whether noncitizens get the same speech protections as citizens when the government wields its deportation hammer.

Short version: It’s murky, it’s legally dubious, and if this crackdown actually happens, it’s bound to end up in the courts.

I'm not saying green card holders have never had their rights violated, but a savvy green card holder, if he or she can afford it, does have recourse, deportation isn't automatic and should never be achieved willy nilly, based on what side of the bed the judge got out of the bed in the morning.

 

[Lisa558]

I think that people in this country are allowed to criticize the actions of the Israeli government without being labeled as supporting Hamas.

Just like people are allowed to criticize Trump, something you previously wanted to make illegal.

It’s more than that, and you know it. It is outright support for an anti-Jew terrorist organization and exacerbating antisemitism on campus.

Ask yourself why you are defending the “rights” of a antisemitic terrorist supporter and NOT the rights of Jewish students to walk across campus without being assaulted.

IOW - Leftists are more sympathetic to supporters of Islamic terrorism than they are to innocent Jewish kids whose rights are being violated.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How so?

Please post the Shitler! victimhood that you’re carrying.

Yeah, you all said he was guilty of rape but was never charged witb rape. You said he was guilty of insurrection but he was never
charged with insurrection.

We don't need criminal statutes...we'll just make it up as we go.

 

[Marener]

It’s more than that, and you know it. It is outright support for an anti-Jew terrorist organization and exacerbating antisemitism on campus.

Ask yourself why you are defending the “rights” of a antisemitic terrorist supporter and NOT the rights of Jewish students to walk across campus without being assaulted.

IOW - Leftists are more sympathetic to supporters of Islamic terrorism than they are to innocent Jewish kids whose rights are being violated.

I’m defending first amendment rights which are absolutely under attack by you and this administration.

The rights of people walking across campus is not in dispute. The right of people to criticize the Israeli government is.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, you all said he was guilty of rape but was never charged witb rape. You said he was guilty of insurrection but he was never
charged with insurrection.

We don't need criminal statutes...we'll just make it up as we go.

And there it is.

Next up is a post about lawfare.

 

[j-mac]

I'll give you the same answer as I gave to Struth:

Khalil’s legal team already secured a federal hearing, meaning the fight is happening exactly where it should--in court. No, he hasn’t filed a habeas petition, because he doesn’t need to. A judge has already put a hold on his deportation, and the case is moving forward. You’re acting like he was dumped into some legal black hole when, in reality, he’s getting the due process immigration law provides--limited, yes, but not nonexistent.

And yes, immigration proceedings may be civil, but they aren’t a slap on the wrist. People get detained, locked up, and fast-tracked out of the country, all without the full constitutional protections of a criminal trial. That’s the system, and if you think it’s fair game to deport green card holders for speech, you’d better be prepared for the constitutional challenge that follows.

The real issue isn’t whether he "just got picked up"--it’s whether the government can use immigration law to purge political opponents under the guise of national security. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you act like this is just business as usual, but it isn’t. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish because someone isn’t a citizen, and the Supreme Court has never settled whether you can deport someone purely for speech. If Khalil is the first test case, that answer is coming soon. Let’s see if you still feel so confident when the courts weigh in.

That's a compelling argument if you had never read INA 237 (a)(4)(c)

"Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n 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…”

Rubio has already penned a letter to that fact, so like it or not this is legal, and duly passed by Congress, and signed by the President....It is US Code.

Mr. Khilil is on his way, one way, back to Syria....Period.

The rest is Kabuki theatre.

 

[Lisa558]

I’m defending first amendment rights which are absolutely under attack by you and this administration.

The rights of people walking across campus is not in dispute. The right of people to criticize the Israeli government is.

But when you support the “right” of a foreign antisemite to spread lies about Jews, it hurts the right of Jews to walk across campus without fear of assault.

You are choosing to prioritixe the “rights” of the antisemitic terrorist supporter over the rights of innocent Jewish kids.

Like all Dems, you have everything upside down.

 

[otto105]

That's a compelling argument if you had never read INA 237 (a)(4)(c)

"Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n 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…”

Rubio has already penned a letter to that fact, so like it or not this is legal, and duly passed by Congress, and signed by the President....It is US Code.

Mr. Khilil is on his way, one way, back to Syria....Period.

The rest is Kabuki theatre.

What is the reasonable ground. Shitlers! demand? Let’s see it in court.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Eugene Volokh’s piece highlights a thorny constitutional question: Can noncitizens be deported purely for their speech? The answer, like most things in immigration law, is a mess of statutory authority, conflicting precedents, and untested constitutional limits.

The Law as Written

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) and § 1227(a)(4)(B), noncitizens who endorse or espouse terrorism can be denied entry or deported. “Terrorist activity” here is broadly defined--it’s not just planting bombs but even advocating for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Congress has always had wide latitude in keeping people out, as confirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel, but what about kicking them out once they’re already here?

The First Amendment Problem

Noncitizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights--Bridges v. Wixon made that clear. You can’t deport someone for saying things that a citizen could legally say. But then there’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, which upheld the deportation of Communist Party members, though it leaned on Dennis v. United States, back when we were jailing people for talking about communism.

More recent cases split. The Ninth Circuit in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno said First Amendment protections apply in deportation cases, while Price v. INS went the other way, deferring to Congress on immigration matters.

Selective Prosecution and Politics

The big red flag here is viewpoint discrimination. The executive order targets “Hamas sympathizers,” but not, say, someone cheering on Israeli bombings. The Supreme Court loathes viewpoint-based restrictions--Rosenberger v. Rector being a prime example. And while Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. says deportation proceedings can’t be challenged on selective prosecution grounds, it didn’t answer whether the government can initiate deportations purely for speech.

Where This Is Headed

Trump’s plan, if implemented, would almost certainly be challenged. The courts have never fully settled whether lawful residents can be deported just for speech, but in today’s First Amendment-friendly climate, the government’s odds don’t look great. If this goes to SCOTUS, it might finally force a ruling on whether noncitizens get the same speech protections as citizens when the government wields its deportation hammer.

Short version: It’s murky, it’s legally dubious, and if this crackdown actually happens, it’s bound to end up in the courts.

Public support of terrorism is no different than inciting violence. Inciting violence is a crime.

 

[otto105]

But when you support the “right” of a foreign antisemite to spread lies about Jews, it hurts away the right of Jews to walk across campus without fear of assault.

You are choosing to prioritixe the “rights” of the antisemitic terrorist supporter over the rights of innocent Jewish kids.

Like all Dems, you have everything upside down.

Why is maga fuckup prioritizing one particular group over another? Are we now not a color, religious and political view point free country?

Why is maga trying to make this one particular group have special extra rights.

 

[j-mac]

What is the reasonable ground. Shitlers! demand? Let’s see it in court.

Read the law....It's already over....

 

[otto105]

Read the law....It's already over....

Then court is no biggie.

Stop whining.

 

[Marener]

But when you support the “right” of a foreign antisemite to spread lies about Jews, it hurts the right of Jews to walk across campus without fear of assault.

You are choosing to prioritixe the “rights” of the antisemitic terrorist supporter over the rights of innocent Jewish kids.

Like all Dems, you have everything upside down.

If someone assaulted kid, whatever ethnicity, they should absolutely be prosecuted.

You don’t prosecute the other kid who has a political opinion about the policy of the Israeli government.

JD Vance was just lecturing Europe about having too strict of laws about hate speech, but here you are saying that’s exactly what you want.

 

[Rumpole]

That's a compelling argument if you had never read INA 237 (a)(4)(c)

"Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n 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…”

Rubio has already penned a letter to that fact, so like it or not this is legal, and duly passed by Congress, and signed by the President....It is US Code.

Mr. Khilil is on his way, one way, back to Syria....Period.

The rest is Kabuki theatre.

Nothing like a selective reading of the law to declare the matter settled with a theatrical flourish. You wave INA 237(a)(4)(C) around like it’s the trump card (pun intended), but is it? I don't think so, to wit:

First, "reasonable grounds to believe" is a deliberately vague standard--more bureaucratic hunch than legal certainty. Yes, the government can assert that someone’s presence is a foreign policy problem, but that doesn’t mean they’ll win that argument in court. Case in point: Kleindienst v. Mandel upheld the government’s power to deny entry for speech, but when it comes to deportation, courts have been far less deferential--because unlike a visa holder, a green card holder has constitutional protections.

You’d have a point if Khalil were waving a rifle instead of a sign, but he was engaging in political speech, and Bridges v. Wixon made it clear that noncitizens in the U.S. still have First Amendment rights. Your citation of INA 237 might give DHS some legal cover to act, but it doesn’t guarantee that action survives judicial scrutiny--particularly under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, which has made it harder, not easier, for the government to punish speech.

And then there’s the viewpoint discrimination problem. You’re comfortable deporting Khalil for pro-Palestinian speech, but if someone publicly advocated for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank in a way that inflamed foreign policy tensions, would they be on a plane too? Of course not, because this isn’t about “serious foreign policy consequences,” it’s about targeting a specific political stance under the guise of national security. The Supreme Court hates viewpoint-based restrictions (Rosenberger v. Rector) and, given the Court’s recent free speech absolutism, Trump’s crackdown is likely to hit a constitutional wall.

So no, this isn’t "Kabuki theater." It’s a live legal battle with stakes higher than your armchair pronouncements allow. Maybe Khalil loses, maybe he doesn’t--but the notion that the matter is closed because Marco Rubio scrawled a letter and ICE knocked on a door is, frankly, laughable. This one is heading for the courts, and if recent history is any guide, the government’s case isn’t nearly as bulletproof as you pretend.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Why would Qatar pour billions and billions of dollars into our universities? Are they just that friendly? They are the same ones that have kept Hamas leaders safe.

 

[Lisa558]

If someone assaulted kid, whatever ethnicity, they should absolutely be prosecuted.

You don’t prosecute the other kid who has a political opinion about the policy of the Israeli government.

JD Vance was just lecturing Europe about having too strict of laws about hate speech, but here you are saying that’s exactly what you want.

You’re still prioritizing the Islamic terrorist supporting Jew-hater over the Jewish kids.

You sure have a lot of tolerance for antisemitism on campus. Jew-hate is at its highest peak since WWII, and you’re OK with HAMAS-supporting foreigners coming onto our soil and making it worse.

Libs would NEVER tolerate what’s going on if violence were against blacks, Muslims, or gays.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That's a compelling argument if you had never read INA 237 (a)(4)(c)

"Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n 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…”

Rubio has already penned a letter to that fact, so like it or not this is legal, and duly passed by Congress, and signed by the President....It is US Code.

Mr. Khilil is on his way, one way, back to Syria....Period.

The rest is Kabuki theatre.

Perhaps the two of you could compromise and just drop off the ghoul half way there?