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

[ReinyDays]

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

With all due respect ... 1st Amendment rights belong to Columbia University ... yes, they regulate speech on campus ...

Regardless ... destruction of property isn't speech, it's a crime ... anyone here on a student visa who commits a crime is to be deported ... rules are rules whether we agree with the speech or not ...

These people are guests ... they should behave as such ... or leave ... we've enough problems with our own native-born bitchwads ...

 

[Contumacious]

No, just idiots - like the “Jews” who protested in defense of the HAMAS supporter yesterday.

BTW , there are numerous well known ASS-k-NAZI Jews who oppose the injustice such as Norman Finkelstein , Glenn Greenwald, Michael D. Shellenberger .

You can call them "idiots" or "self-hating Jews" but the fact is that they are doing the best to prevent a WW3 against Iran and Russia. That is a good thing.

Furthermore , many other Israeli Jews , INCLUDING AND IDF COLONEL , testified that the October 7th massacre was a FALSE FLAG




Your House of Cards is falling apart

 

[Contumacious]

From the British Mandate Government. Jews were called Palestinians pre 1948 because ‘Palestinian’ is a demonym not an ethnonym. Those passports also had the Hebrew abbreviation for ‘Eretz Yisrael’, Land of Israel printed on them as did ALL Mandate documents, currency, postage stamps etc.


‘Palestine’ was no more than the League of Nations Mandate (1923–1948) awarded to the British government to ‘reconstitute’ the Jews ancestral homeland. Prior to WW1 the whole region was part of the Ottoman Empire for more that 400 years.

You are referring to

The Sykes–Picot Agreement (/ˈsaɪks ˈpiːkoʊ, - pɪˈkoʊ, - piːˈkoʊ/<a href="Sykes–Picot Agreement - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a>) was a >>>>>>>1916 secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.<<<<<<

How can a secret treaty adversely affect the Palestinians Arabs right to their homeland ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

WHEN was the UK given the authority to adversely affect Palestinian Rights ?!?!?!?!?

The Council of the League of Nations:​

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

 

[Lisa558]

BTW , there are numerous well known ASS-k-NAZI Jews who oppose the injustice such as Norman Finkelstein , Glenn Greenwald, Michael D. Shellenberger .

You can call them "idiots" or "self-hating Jews" but the fact is that they are doing the best to prevent a WW3 against Iran and Russia. That is a good thing.

Furthermore , many other Israeli Jews , INCLUDING AND IDF COLONEL , testified that the October 7th massacre was a FALSE FLAG




Your House of Cards is falling apart

Still…..a tiny minority. The vast majority of Jews support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

BTW, are you opposed to the dozen or so Muslim nations? Or is just about Da Joos with you?

 

[Contumacious]

Still…..a tiny minority. The vast majority of Jews support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

BULLSHIT

The October 7th FALSE FLAG was an effort to conceal the fact that during the summer Israel came very close to a civil war

Israel On Brink Of Civil War!​

 

[Lisa558]

BULLSHIT

The October 7th FALSE FLAG was an effort to conceal the fact that during the summer Israel came very close to a civil war

Israel On Brink Of Civil War!​

Talk about BULLSHIT!

(These antisemites must be reading anti-Jew propoganda).

 

[dblack]

Some countries do not permit any political speech by non citizens.

Maybe you'd like it better in one of those countries.

 

[Frankenstein]

SHUT THE **** IGNORANT FOOL


Palestine was a former Ottoman territory

https://www.un.org/unispal/history/

I understand your anger you have believed a lie for so long

 

[Lisa558]

I understand your anger you have believed a lie for so long

I think it’s odd that posters who joined 15 years ago, and whom I’ve never come across in the few years I’ve been here, all of a sudden become “alive” to post dozens of antisemitic posts a day.

I’ve noticed it with others, too.

Just an observation.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Maybe you'd like it better in one of those countries.

Maybe you'd like it better in Palestine, your homeland.

 

[JoeB131]

The vast majority of Jews are Ashenazi, so you have just called the majority of Jews “white supremacists.”

(Just what America needed. Another liberal Jew-hater.)

I think it's more like for centuries, the Ashekenazi were discriminated again, and the minute they were considered "White enough", they started engaging in the worst behavior of white people.

"Hey, lets go colonize some land full of brown people"

"Uh, dude, we don't do that anymore!"

 

[Rumpole]

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

Not constitutional protections

No, I am talking about the constitution protections. They are not equal comparing green card holders to undocumented.

 

[struth]

No, I am talking about the constitution protections. They are not equal comparing green card holders to undocumented.

But you listed things that aren’t protected by the constitution…ie employment rights, or local voting rights…

 

[el midgetron]

 

[fncceo]

"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.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

My response is a (rhetorical) question, "What took them so long?".

 

[Rumpole]

But you listed things that aren’t protected by the constitution…ie employment rights, or local voting rights…

Yes, employment rights and local voting laws are not directly enshrined in the Constitution. But if you had some familiarity with constitutional jurisprudence, you’d know that the discussion isn’t just about what is explicitly written in the document, but how its protections are applied.

The question was whether green card holders and undocumented immigrants receive equal constitutional protections. They don’t. A green card holder has legal permanence, a right to due process in deportation proceedings, access to courts, and stronger safeguards under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. An undocumented immigrant, on the other hand, can be summarily detained and deported with far fewer legal remedies, because the Supreme Court has neatly categorized immigration enforcement as an administrative matter, not a criminal one--thus depriving them of key constitutional protections that a green card holder can invoke. See, it's in the constitutional invocations allowable to a green card holder that are not granted to an undoc where the inequality lies.

And as for your nitpicking about employment and voting -- ok, the Constitution protects due process, equal protection, and fundamental rights. It does not protect your ability to get a driver's license either, yet somehow, being lawfully present versus unlawfully present in the country drastically changes your access to one. Why? Because the structure of constitutional protections doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It informs how laws are written, interpreted, and applied.

So, no, you don’t get to wave away the glaring inequality in constitutional protections just because you’d rather pretend those disparities don’t exist. The Constitution isn’t just a list of bullet points, it’s a framework of rights, and within that framework, a green card holder stands on far firmer ground than an undocumented immigrant. That, Struth, is the point.

 

[struth]

Yes, employment rights and local voting laws are not directly enshrined in the Constitution. But if you had some familiarity with constitutional jurisprudence, you’d know that the discussion isn’t just about what is explicitly written in the document, but how its protections are applied.

The question was whether green card holders and undocumented immigrants receive equal constitutional protections. They don’t. A green card holder has legal permanence, a right to due process in deportation proceedings, access to courts, and stronger safeguards under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. An undocumented immigrant, on the other hand, can be summarily detained and deported with far fewer legal remedies, because the Supreme Court has neatly categorized immigration enforcement as an administrative matter, not a criminal one--thus depriving them of key constitutional protections that a green card holder can invoke. See, it's in the constitutional invocations allowable to a green card holder that are not granted to an undoc where the inequality lies.

And as for your nitpicking about employment and voting -- ok, the Constitution protects due process, equal protection, and fundamental rights. It does not protect your ability to get a driver's license either, yet somehow, being lawfully present versus unlawfully present in the country drastically changes your access to one. Why? Because the structure of constitutional protections doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It informs how laws are written, interpreted, and applied.

So, no, you don’t get to wave away the glaring inequality in constitutional protections just because you’d rather pretend those disparities don’t exist. The Constitution isn’t just a list of bullet points, it’s a framework of rights, and within that framework, a green card holder stands on far firmer ground than an undocumented immigrant. That, Struth, is the point.

There was no question, i told you, you are ignorant and hopefully learned

 

[Rumpole]

There was no question, i told you, you are ignorant and hopefully learned

No one mentioned a 'question', so I have no idea what you are talking about. You said they were equal, and I provided conclusive proof you were incorrect. Sorry, my post reflects study, and is well researched. Either you are daft, or clueless, or both. I'd say the latter given your hideous grammar.

 

[Rumpole]

you want to lecture about criminal records? Sit down and let’s talk about your hero, one Donald J. Trump--a full-blown, neon-lit, sirens-blaring catastrophe of corruption, fraud, and authoritarian delusions, wrapped in a spray-tanned ego with the impulse control of a raccoon on meth.

This isn’t just a case of "bad judgment." No, Trump is a national security threat on legs--a walking, talking liability with 91 felony charges hanging over his head, found liable for sexual abuse, financial fraud, and outright theft. The man’s got more pending court dates than campaign stops, and yet here you are, clutching your pearls over someone else’s criminal record while your guy is out here hoarding nuclear secrets in a bathroom, selling America’s foreign policy to the highest bidder, and surrounding himself with more convicted felons than an episode of Cops.

Let’s take a stroll down criminal lane, shall we? His campaign chairman (Manafort)? Convicted. His longtime fixer (Cohen)? Convicted. His National Security Advisor (Flynn)? Convicted. His Chief Strategist (Bannon)? Indicted for fraud. His personal lawyer (Giuliani)? Disbarred and sued into oblivion. His company’s CFO (Weisselberg)? Serving time for tax fraud. His trade advisor (Navarro)? Convicted of contempt. His top donor and inaugural chairman (Barrack)? Indicted for acting as a foreign agent. And himself? Found guilty of defamation, fraud, and campaign finance violations before even touching the four criminal indictments stacked against him.

Your guy literally tried to overthrow the government and then had the gall to call it “a perfect day.” He didn’t just pardon war criminals--he tried to make them political props. He stood shoulder to shoulder with dictators, threw his own intelligence agencies under the bus to kiss Putin’s boots, and ran his administration like a failing casino--looting it for cash, stiffing contractors, and leaving a pile of debt for someone else to clean up.

And yet this is the guy you want to pretend is some kind of moral alternative? Please. If criminal history disqualifies someone from being a “hero,” then Donald Trump shouldn’t just be out of politics--he should be sitting in a prison cell next to half his staff. Spare us the outrage, Oli. Your hypocrisy is showing, and it’s glowing in big, gaudy, gold-plated Trump Tower letters.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If he can legally be deported, he will be. Maybe he and his wife, who by the way the MSM demands that you know that she's eight months pregnant, can get a newly available building lot in Gaza. I hear they are already leveled.