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

[Scoutster]

Ship him to Gitmo is my vote

 

[JoeB131]

He’s a visa guest and not a resident nor citizen. He’s a visitor with permission and subject to the conditions of the granted permission. The Freedom of Assembly is different for him than US citizens.

First, that's not what the constitution says. The first Amendment doesn't say 'For Citizens only". Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Secondly, he's married to a US Citizen.

 

[0311]

Ship him to Gitmo is my vote

He broke no law. There was NO crime.

 

[laferia52]

"Federal immigration authorities arrested a Palestinian graduate student who played a prominent role in last spring’s anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, according to his attorney.

Mahmoud Khalil was inside his university-owned residence Saturday night near Columbia’s Manhattan campus when several Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered the building and took him into custody, his attorney, Amy Greer, told The Associated Press.

Greer said she spoke by phone with one of the ICE agents during the arrest, who said they were acting on State Department orders to revoke Khalil’s student visa. Informed by the attorney that Khalil was in the United States as a permanent resident with a green card, the agent said they were revoking that too, according to the lawyer.

The arrest appeared to be among the first known actions under President Donald Trump’s pledge to deport international students who joined the protests against Israel’s war in Gaza that swept college campuses last spring. His administration has claimed participants forfeited their rights to remain in the country by supporting Hamas, a terror organization."

Immigration agents arrest Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests

A prominent Palestinian activist who helped lead last spring's protests at Columbia University has been arrested by federal immigration agents.

apnews.com

The fascist Trump regime at its most authoritarian.

The unlawful, unwarranted detention of an immigrant lawfully in the country exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

And like the fascist thug he is, Trump is attempting to silence dissent and lawful protest.

Deport him immediately

 

[0311]

Deport him immediately

One More TIME: Mahmoud Khalil did NOT break the law. Protesting the Israeli Genocide in Gaza is protected by the First Amendment. He is a legal Resident of the United States and has the Green Card to prove it. He did NOT break any law, there was and is Crime. He has done nothing that would call for deportation.

 

[struth]

One More TIME: Mahmoud Khalil did NOT break the law. Protesting the Israeli Genocide in Gaza is protected by the First Amendment. He is a legal Resident of the United States and has the Green Card to prove it. He did NOT break any law, there was and is Crime. He has done nothing that would call for deportation.

He doesn’t have to commit a crime to be deported

Read the law

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. One could make the argument that he violated his student F-1 Visa, but he was no longer under a student visa. He was married to a US citizen and was sponsored under a K-3 visa.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes it does, the constitution protects everyone under its jurisdiction. The govt can’t illegally search an illegal anymore then it can a citizen or green card holder, they have the same constitutional protections. If subject the it’s jurisdiction

Not talking about the similarities, but just explained to you the differences, which proves it's not equal. Either refute it, or I will accept your conceding the argument.

 

[g5000]

Good. Deport him ASAP.

Meanwhile, Trump pardons this guy:

 

[Rumpole]

1) work benefits aren’t a constitutional right
2) voting in local elections isn’t a constitutional issue
3) illegals can certainly travel wherever they want
4) green card holders can’t legally own a gun
5) and illegal alien gets all the same protections in a criminal trial, an illegal us automatically deportable (which isn’t a constitutional issue) a green card holder very well could be deportable

Struth, once again bravely charging into battle armed with nothing but half-truths and wishful thinking. Let's take these one by one, shall we?

First, the claim that work benefits aren’t a constitutional right. A fine little straw man, but a straw man nonetheless. No one argued that employment benefits are enshrined in the Constitution. The point--one that seems to have sailed right over your head--is that legal residency grants access to economic stability in a way that undocumented status does not. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that anyone have a job, but it certainly protects the right of legal residents to participate fully in the workforce without living in constant fear of deportation or exploitation. The undocumented don’t get that. That’s the point.

Second, voting in local elections isn’t a constitutional issue. Ah, so you do know that local governments exist. Fascinating. But again, a feint to avoid the larger issue. The Constitution, in all its democratic grandeur, does not protect the right of undocumented immigrants to have a say in the government that taxes them, regulates them, and, in some cases, detains them. Green card holders, at least in certain jurisdictions, get a voice. The undocumented? They get to watch from the sidelines. The lack of constitutional protection isn’t just a technicality--it’s a deliberate exclusion.

Third, the laughable assertion that "illegals can certainly travel wherever they want." Yes, of course, and I suppose prisoners are free to roam the yard. In reality, an undocumented immigrant who leaves the country faces a potential lifetime ban from returning, courtesy of the U.S. immigration system. A green card holder, on the other hand, can visit family abroad and come back legally. The difference between the two is the difference between having the right to move and rolling the dice on permanent exile. But by all means, keep pretending that’s not a distinction.

Fourth, your claim that green card holders can’t legally own a gun. Try again. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(y)), lawful permanent residents are explicitly allowed to own and purchase firearms. Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, are federally prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). So unless you’re advocating for some secret second set of laws that the rest of us aren’t aware of, your claim is simply, demonstrably, laughably wrong.

Fifth, your clumsy attempt to blur the lines between criminal and immigration law. An undocumented immigrant facing a criminal trial gets the same due process rights as anyone else--until, of course, the moment that trial ends. Then, they can be shipped off without further proceedings because deportation is a civil matter, not a criminal one. A green card holder, meanwhile, has multiple avenues to challenge deportation, depending on the charge. To pretend these are equivalent is to pretend that having a single legal hearing before a rubber-stamp immigration judge is the same as having full constitutional protections in a criminal court. It isn’t.

And that brings us, finally, to the true core of your argument: a desperate refusal to acknowledge that rights in this country are stratified, that legal residency is a firewall against arbitrary expulsion, and that the Constitution is not some universal safety net that protects all persons equally. You may wish that weren’t the case. You may even wish that undocumented immigrants had it better than they do. But if wishes were law, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[g5000]

Good. Deport him ASAP.

Meanwhile, JD Vance vigorously defended this guy:

• “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.”
• “Normalize Indian hate.”
• “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.”
• “I just want a eugenic immigration policy, is that too much to ask.”

 

[progressive hunter]

Meanwhile, JD Vance vigorously defended this guy:

• “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.”
• “Normalize Indian hate.”
• “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.”
• “I just want a eugenic immigration policy, is that too much to ask.”

VIGOROUSLY!!!

 

[struth]

Struth, once again bravely charging into battle armed with nothing but half-truths and wishful thinking. Let's take these one by one, shall we?

First, the claim that work benefits aren’t a constitutional right. A fine little straw man, but a straw man nonetheless. No one argued that employment benefits are enshrined in the Constitution. The point--one that seems to have sailed right over your head--is that legal residency grants access to economic stability in a way that undocumented status does not. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that anyone have a job, but it certainly protects the right of legal residents to participate fully in the workforce without living in constant fear of deportation or exploitation. The undocumented don’t get that. That’s the point.

Second, voting in local elections isn’t a constitutional issue. Ah, so you do know that local governments exist. Fascinating. But again, a feint to avoid the larger issue. The Constitution, in all its democratic grandeur, does not protect the right of undocumented immigrants to have a say in the government that taxes them, regulates them, and, in some cases, detains them. Green card holders, at least in certain jurisdictions, get a voice. The undocumented? They get to watch from the sidelines. The lack of constitutional protection isn’t just a technicality--it’s a deliberate exclusion.

Third, the laughable assertion that "illegals can certainly travel wherever they want." Yes, of course, and I suppose prisoners are free to roam the yard. In reality, an undocumented immigrant who leaves the country faces a potential lifetime ban from returning, courtesy of the U.S. immigration system. A green card holder, on the other hand, can visit family abroad and come back legally. The difference between the two is the difference between having the right to move and rolling the dice on permanent exile. But by all means, keep pretending that’s not a distinction.

Fourth, your claim that green card holders can’t legally own a gun. Try again. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(y)), lawful permanent residents are explicitly allowed to own and purchase firearms. Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, are federally prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). So unless you’re advocating for some secret second set of laws that the rest of us aren’t aware of, your claim is simply, demonstrably, laughably wrong.

Fifth, your clumsy attempt to blur the lines between criminal and immigration law. An undocumented immigrant facing a criminal trial gets the same due process rights as anyone else--until, of course, the moment that trial ends. Then, they can be shipped off without further proceedings because deportation is a civil matter, not a criminal one. A green card holder, meanwhile, has multiple avenues to challenge deportation, depending on the charge. To pretend these are equivalent is to pretend that having a single legal hearing before a rubber-stamp immigration judge is the same as having full constitutional protections in a criminal court. It isn’t.

And that brings us, finally, to the true core of your argument: a desperate refusal to acknowledge that rights in this country are stratified, that legal residency is a firewall against arbitrary expulsion, and that the Constitution is not some universal safety net that protects all persons equally. You may wish that weren’t the case. You may even wish that undocumented immigrants had it better than they do. But if wishes were law, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes we are talking constitutional rights, so the bf s that aren’t constitutional like employment law and local elections aren’t what we are talking about

As far as gun rights, under federal statutes green card holders can own guns but states can restrict them.

 

[struth]

Not talking about the similarities, but just explained to you the differences, which proves it's not equal. Either refute it, or I will accept your conceding the argument.

What you are talking about are things that anyone avoiding the law might not exercise out of fear if being caught

Not constitutional protections

 

[j-mac]

The SOS can not use his speech against him - no explanation how the same constitutes a "threat to foreign policy"

Already posted the statute 3x now…There is plenty of good back and forth explaining both sides of this…You’ll just have to read the thread.

 

[j-mac]

the analogy sucks

The US has been sticking it to those folks since 1948 - they have a right to protest

Like I said…he can protest when he gets home to Syria.

 

[Sayaras]

STUPID FUCK

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces​

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

The premier's policy of treating the terror group as a partner, at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood, has resulted in wounds that will take Israel years to heal from

www.timesofisrael.com

For years Netanyahu extended olive branches to Gazans. And its terror regime Hamas repaid with massacres. But radical left switches this around

 

[Sayaras]

Like I said…he can protest when he gets home to Syria.

Yes. And there are no protests in totalitarian Islamic regime Gaza...

 

[Sayaras]

THERE WAS NO CRIME!!!!! Mahmoud Khalil is legal resident ...

Mahmoud Khalil is not "pro palestine", but pro: RACIST GENOCIDAL TERROR HAMAS REGIME AND ITS IDEOLOGY.

 

[irosie91]

For years Netanyahu extended olive branches to Gazans. And its terror regime Hamas repaid with massacres. But radical left switches this around

the islamo nazi libel that DA JOOOS somehow created HAMAS is nothin' new. In the islamo nazi propaganda I read way back in the 1950's
they claimed that DA JOOOOS invented al nabi
ADOLF ----that and Bubonic plague. More
recently the AYATOILETS have been claiming
that the 'evil' ALAWITES who oppose the new
islamo nazi "president" of Syria ---have been
paid off by DA JOOOOS (that the KURDS are under the control of Jooos is also an old story)