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

[j-mac]

Yes. I’m asking if that’s what you believe, because that’s pretty silly thing to say, especially given this administrations view on unitary executive.

All authority that the SoS has stems from the president. There isn’t anything the SoS can do that the president can’t do.

All that matters here is that the statute was fulfilled...Anything else is just emotional outburst from you...

 

[j-mac]

If he’s a terrorist, why isn’t he prosecuted for it?

He's not a terrorist per se...But he is a sympathizer...

 

[Edgetho]

Interesting. A Jewish attorney?

Lots of self-gassing Jews in that arena

 

[Tommy Tainant]

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), which provides (in subsections (B)(i)(VII) and B(iii))

Any alien who … endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization … is inadmissible….

May Aliens Be Deported Based on Their Speech?

Thursday's Fact Sheet related to Wednesday's Executive Order, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, says (among other things): Immediate action will…

reason.com

Protest isnt terrorism. Its amazing that has to be explained to you magas.

 

[Rumpole]

Correct legal status, by the sec of state, that can be removed

No the constitution protects visas holder and undocumented aliens as well.

To a lesser extent that is true, but it's not equal to a green card holder, but I didn't say the constitution didn't protect undocs to a lesser extent. If you are claiming equal, that's not accurate. We can go over the differences, if you want.

 

[Marener]

All that matters here is that the statute was fulfilled...Anything else is just emotional outburst from you...

You’re purposefully trying not to think about this.

You think the president has authority to deport any noncitizen at any time.

Is that right?

 

[j-mac]

To a lesser extent that is true, but it's not equal to a green card holder, but I didn't say the constitution didn't protect undocs to a lesser extent. If you are claiming equal, that's not accurate. We can go over the differences, if you want.

Are you an immigrant attorney?

 

[j-mac]

You’re purposefully trying not to think about this.

You think the president has authority to deport any noncitizen at any time.

Is that right?

If that non citizen poses a National security threat, yes...That's established, regardless of your emotional status over it...

 

[Marener]

If that non citizen poses a National security threat, yes...That's established, regardless of your emotional status over it...

And the president has unilateral authority to declare someone a “national security threat”, correct?

 

[WEATHER53]

U

You are intentionally leaving out that this man is NOT an American citizen. My guess is so that you can falsely assert that he has rights he doesn't have.

But, none the less, if you are talking about a threat to the National Security of the nation, I would point you to the case of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki ... Under Obama, he ordered this man, an actual American citizen, to be drone attacked in Yemen resulting in his death....So, maybe you want a better high horse to jump on?

They value illegals criminals and disrupters far more than contributory Americans Because they are not contributing Americans themselves

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lots of self-gassing Jews in that arena

Wow, that such an antisemitic post can elicit no reactions from trumpanzees tells me all I need to know about this country today.

 

[j-mac]

And the president has unilateral authority to declare someone a “national security threat”, correct?

Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS By the authority vested in me as President by

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Rumpole]

Just a question Rumpy, Why are you fighting so hard for a filthy terrorist supporter?

You think that your activist judges in the lower courts will succeed in letting this scumbag loose to prey on our children in college, I think not…We shall see.

I'm not, actually, and your inability to distinguish my defending the constitution, which affords due process to everyone under it's jurisdiction, which includes a green card holder, and 'supporting terrorism', speaks to your ignorance. Your sentiment is a sibling of those mobs who jump to conclusions and lynch someone without due process. Not precisely the same, but a distant cousin of the same sentiment.

Thus, you are falling prey to the time-honored tradition of conflating legal principle with personal endorsement, which is a logical fallacy. But let’s not pretend this is about protecting anyone’s children; it’s about defending the Constitution from the kind of emotional, reactionary authoritarianism that history has never looked kindly upon.

See, j-mac, You don’t get to pick and choose when due process applies based on your personal disgust. The law either stands on principle, or it crumbles under the weight of political hysteria. And as for “activist judges,” that’s just the term you use when the courts rule against your preferred brand of government overreach. You might be comfortable with the executive branch wielding unchecked power to silence dissent, but the Supreme Court--yes, even this one--has been quite clear that the First Amendment does not hinge on whether speech makes you uncomfortable.

If the government has a case, let them prove it in court. If your position were as airtight as you pretend, you wouldn’t need to smear legal process as a favor to “terrorist supporters”--you’d simply let the law speak for itself. But you won’t, because deep down, you suspect that when the matter is actually tested, the government’s case may not be the ironclad inevitability you desperately wish it to be. And that, more than your overwrought fearmongering, is why this fight matters. However, somehow, I suspect this concept will go right over your head, right?

 

[j-mac]

They value illegals criminals and disrupters far more than contributory Americans Because they are not contributing Americans themselves

I'm giving Mariner latitude to hang himself with his own words and actions on this matter....So far, it's going swimmingly wouldn't you say?

 

[WEATHER53]

And usually had the charges dropped by complacent blue city sympathetic officials.

They blocked for two days and a Few who resisted removal were Then arrested. More lib loob lying

 

[Edgetho]

They value illegals criminals and disrupters far more than contributory Americans Because they are not contributing Americans themselves

But mostly because they are scum themselves. It makes them nervous watching OMB round up scumbags and send them packing. They wonder if they might be next.

 

[Marener]

Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS By the authority vested in me as President by

www.whitehouse.gov

Again, the president can declare anyone a threat to national security. Right?

 

[Rumpole]

Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS By the authority vested in me as President by

www.whitehouse.gov

That's not quite right. In fact it's false.

The President of the United States does have substantial authority to address national security threats, but this authority is not completely unilateral.

While the President can declare a national emergency and take significant actions under laws like the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), these actions are subject to oversight by Congress and can be challenged in court.

There is a distinction between the President declaring a national emergency or national security threat in a broader context and declaring an individual as a national security threat.

The President has the authority to declare a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, which allows the exercise of certain powers under laws like the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, when it comes to declaring an individual as a national security threat, the President does not have unilateral authority to make such a declaration without due process and legal constraints. The determination of an individual as a national security threat would generally involve legal and judicial processes.

So, the claim that the President has unilateral authority to declare an individual a national security threat is indeed false.

So, it's a bit nuanced: the President has significant authority but it's not entirely unchecked or unilateral.

 

[WEATHER53]

I'm not, actually, and your inability to distinguish my defending the constitution, which affords due process to everyone under it's jurisdiction, which includes a green card holder, and 'supporting terrorism', speaks to your ignorance. Your sentiment is a sibling of those mobs who jump to conclusions and lynch someone without due process. Not precisely the same, but a distant cousin of the same sentiment.

Thus, you are falling prey to the time-honored tradition of conflating legal principle with personal endorsement, which is a logical fallacy. But let’s not pretend this is about protecting anyone’s children; it’s about defending the Constitution from the kind of emotional, reactionary authoritarianism that history has never looked kindly upon.

See, j-mac, You don’t get to pick and choose when due process applies based on your personal disgust. The law either stands on principle, or it crumbles under the weight of political hysteria. And as for “activist judges,” that’s just the term you use when the courts rule against your preferred brand of government overreach. You might be comfortable with the executive branch wielding unchecked power to silence dissent, but the Supreme Court--yes, even this one--has been quite clear that the First Amendment does not hinge on whether speech makes you uncomfortable.

If the government has a case, let them prove it in court. If your position were as airtight as you pretend, you wouldn’t need to smear legal process as a favor to “terrorist supporters”--you’d simply let the law speak for itself. But you won’t, because deep down, you suspect that when the matter is actually tested, the government’s case may not be the ironclad inevitability you desperately wish it to be. And that, more than your overwrought fearmongering, is why this fight matters. However, somehow, I suspect this concept will go right over your head, right?

The constitutional benefits do Not automatically confer to everyone who steps onto our soil

 

[Rumpole]

His bunch chased students into a classroom amounting to hostage holding and prohibited their entry into classes
He’s a guest of and in the USA yet behaves as a terrorist douche. Kicking his guest ass out is entirely lawful and appropriate. Stop supporting mental midget deviants

If that is true, find, let due process take it's just course. I"m all in for due process.