Remember Who We Are

[HeyNorm]

"...people who neither share nor respect basic American values, have no respect for its flag, instigate unrest on college campuses, are anti-semitic to an unreasonable degree,...."

Do you not recognize that you are describing Democrats?

Do you want them all deported?

Talk about sidestepping. Citizen vs. Non Citizen.

We get it, adulting is tough.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This will make your day. Another dead Hamas terrorist.

Have they released the Hostages yet?

 

[mudwhistle]

IF it were moot, you wouldn't be coming back.

Our side should not simply replicate theirs when we are in power.

We don't. We aren't completely going to the extreme in either direction, be it giving in to these losers like Canada and the UK or putting them to the sword like they do in Yemen, Gaza, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq.
We're just attempting to remove them before they become a bigger problem.

BTW, I went thru the US Army Special Forces Qualification Course at Ft Bragg NC back in the 80s, and foreign students from the ME who failed the course were put to death when they returned. So they stopped failing foreign students, even when they didn't meet the standards.

 

[gipper]

Have they released the Hostages yet?

Has your nation of Israel released the hostages yet, Carl in Mecca?

Who violated the ceasefire?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do deport a REAL U.S. CITIZEN??

TO WHERE?

This guy IS NOT A CITIZEN.

Perhaps you've heard of, but obviously never read, the US Constitution.

He is protected by same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By law we cannot deport citizens no matter how undesirable. But it is insane to import non citizens to help them. Khalil is not a U.S. citizen and his behavior shows him as not the sort of people we want as U.S. citizens.

The President has no power to remove corrupt citizens from the country. But he can certainly approve ICE and the CBP removing non citizens who present national security threats or otherwise are undesirable as citizens. Instigating campus unrest to the point of unlawfulness, encouraging violating the rights of Jewish citizens, supporting terrorist groups is not what we want of citizens. It goes far beyond any standard protection of free speech under the Constitution.

Edit: I am NOT anti immigrant at all. I have done hands on work helping new immigrant families assimilate into U.S. society. I have taught Constitution to new immigrants (plus a few citizens who asked to be included.) I have worked with, befriended, been neighbors with a number of immigrants. I am all for new immigrants who come here to be Americans, who respect our laws, our values, our flag, our Constitution, our people. They can be Democrat, Republican, apolitical or whatever and it doesn't matter. If they become good citizens they are welcome.

But to allow immigrants, not yet naturalized, to stay here who disrespect our laws, our values, our flag, our Constitution, our people and who pose a national security threat by defending and supporting terrorist groups. . .

That's just nuts.

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, permanent residents, also known as green card holders, are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including rights like due process and equal protection under the law.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Constitutional Protections:
  The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the United States, regardless of their immigration status, including permanent residents.
  
  
• Due Process and Equal Protection:
  Permanent residents are entitled to due process of law and equal protection under the law, meaning they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and they must be treated equally under the law.
  
  
• • Other Rights:
    Permanent residents also have other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
    

 

[eagle1462010]

Perhaps you've heard of, but obviously never read, the US Constitution.

He is protected by same.

He has a court date. And he can be deported via Executive Order if the Executive deems them a security rusk.

Have you challenged that order??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you really equate stirring up unrest and lawlessness on college campuses, disrespecting and encouraging violation of rights to Jewish Americans, supporting terrorist organizations etc. with what happened January 6?

You do not see any difference between those two things?

Ejecting non-citizen security risks from our midst is what our Constitution authorizes our government to do. Failure to do that is to invite grief and destruction to our country.

Lawfare makes up or exaggerates crimes to take down political opponents. That is bad government unacceptable to all honorable Americans.

Ejecting non citizens who should not be here is what good government does. All honorable Americans should demand it.

• "In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the Illinois Supreme Court had infringed on the National Socialist Party of America's (NSPA) constitutional rights to freedom of speech by denying their request for a stay pending appeal, concerning an injunction preventing the NSPA from marching in Skokie, Illinois.Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • The Context:
    In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a group of self-styled Nazis, planned a march in Skokie, Illinois, a community with a large Jewish population, including Holocaust survivors.
    
    
  • The Village's Response:
    The Village of Skokie sought an injunction to prevent the march, arguing that the display of swastikas and other Nazi symbols would incite violence and hatred.
    
    
  • • The ACLU's Involvement:
      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) controversially agreed to represent the NSPA, arguing for the group's right to free speech.
    • The Illinois Courts:
      The Illinois courts initially sided with the Village of Skokie, issuing an injunction that prohibited the NSPA from marching and displaying certain materials.
    • The Supreme Court's Decision:
      The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Illinois Supreme Court had erred by denying the NSPA's request for a stay pending appeal.
    • The Ruling's Significance:
      The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of free speech, even for unpopular or offensive views, and set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech and hate speech. "
    • Google.
    • 
      
    • 
      

 

[PoliticalChic]

Talk about sidestepping. Citizen vs. Non Citizen.

We get it, adulting is tough.

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, permanent residents, also known as green card holders, are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including rights like due process and equal protection under the law.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Constitutional Protections:
  The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the United States, regardless of their immigration status, including permanent residents.
  
  
• Due Process and Equal Protection:
  Permanent residents are entitled to due process of law and equal protection under the law, meaning they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and they must be treated equally under the law.
  
  
• • Other Rights:
    Permanent residents also have other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We don't. We aren't completely going to the extreme in either direction, be it giving in to these losers like Canada and the UK or putting them to the sword like they do in Yemen, Gaza, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq.
We're just attempting to remove them before they become a bigger problem.

BTW, I went thru the US Army Special Forces Qualification Course at Ft Bragg NC back in the 80s, and foreign students from the ME who failed the course were put to death when they returned. So they stopped failing foreign students, even when they didn't meet the standards.

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, permanent residents, also known as green card holders, are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including rights like due process and equal protection under the law.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Constitutional Protections:
  The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the United States, regardless of their immigration status, including permanent residents.
  
  
• Due Process and Equal Protection:
  Permanent residents are entitled to due process of law and equal protection under the law, meaning they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and they must be treated equally under the law.
  
  
• • Other Rights:
    Permanent residents also have other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

 

[eagle1462010]

• "In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the Illinois Supreme Court had infringed on the National Socialist Party of America's (NSPA) constitutional rights to freedom of speech by denying their request for a stay pending appeal, concerning an injunction preventing the NSPA from marching in Skokie, Illinois.Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • The Context:
    In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a group of self-styled Nazis, planned a march in Skokie, Illinois, a community with a large Jewish population, including Holocaust survivors.
    
    
  • The Village's Response:
    The Village of Skokie sought an injunction to prevent the march, arguing that the display of swastikas and other Nazi symbols would incite violence and hatred.
    
    
  • • The ACLU's Involvement:
      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) controversially agreed to represent the NSPA, arguing for the group's right to free speech.
    • The Illinois Courts:
      The Illinois courts initially sided with the Village of Skokie, issuing an injunction that prohibited the NSPA from marching and displaying certain materials.
    • The Supreme Court's Decision:
      The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Illinois Supreme Court had erred by denying the NSPA's request for a stay pending appeal.
    • The Ruling's Significance:
      The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of free speech, even for unpopular or offensive views, and set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech and hate speech. "
    • Google.
    • 
      
    • 
      

During that protest did they threaten and intimidate Jews forcing them to hide?

Did they get proper permits where the protests occurred?

They didnt get them from Columbia University. They disrupted school marched through school terrorizing AJews.

They can get fucked.

On a personal note they should all be doing time for inciting riots and violating the rights of others.

BTW. You still refuse to accept this jerk is NOT A CITIZEN.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Choosing revenge and the use of our new-found political power is a mistake.

The real villain here is the authority that could have ended the protests at the start. They could have had the police come in at the start, and they could have summarily expelled students and removed the diploma of folks like Kalil, as they did for some other students.


Government is and should be restrained by the Constitution......Columbia University had the power to end the protests, as it would have if it were black student who were targetted.

 

[eagle1462010]

Choosing revenge and the use of our new-found political power is a mistake.

The real villain here is the authority that could have ended the protests at the start. They could have had the police come in at the start, and they could have summarily expelled students and removed the diploma of folks like Kalil, as they did for some other students.


Government is and should be restrained by the Constitution......Columbia University had the power to end the protests, as it would have if it were black student who were targetted.



View attachment 1091216

Had this happened in Alabama they would have been thrown in jail.

Difference between us.

Have you challenged the executive order in court?

Does this guy get a day in court and legal representation? Why yes he does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Had this happened in Alabama they would have been thrown in jail.

Difference between us.

Have you challenged the executive order in court?

Does this guy get a day in court and legal representation? Why yes he does.

Who is "they"?

 

[eagle1462010]

Who is "they"?

The protesters terrorizing others.

You know what I meant. Stop dancing.

 

[The Duke]

Was there an apology in there?

Did I miss it?

You did not, and you will not until such a time as I deem it viable, which it currently is not.

 

[Foxfyre]

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, permanent residents, also known as green card holders, are protected by the U.S. Constitution, including rights like due process and equal protection under the law.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Constitutional Protections:
  The U.S. Constitution applies to all persons within the United States, regardless of their immigration status, including permanent residents.
  
  
• Due Process and Equal Protection:
  Permanent residents are entitled to due process of law and equal protection under the law, meaning they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and they must be treated equally under the law.
  
  
• • Other Rights:
    Permanent residents also have other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the very competent legal explanations in the links I have provided.

 

[Foxfyre]

• "In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the Illinois Supreme Court had infringed on the National Socialist Party of America's (NSPA) constitutional rights to freedom of speech by denying their request for a stay pending appeal, concerning an injunction preventing the NSPA from marching in Skokie, Illinois.Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • The Context:
    In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a group of self-styled Nazis, planned a march in Skokie, Illinois, a community with a large Jewish population, including Holocaust survivors.
    
    
  • The Village's Response:
    The Village of Skokie sought an injunction to prevent the march, arguing that the display of swastikas and other Nazi symbols would incite violence and hatred.
    
    
  • • The ACLU's Involvement:
      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) controversially agreed to represent the NSPA, arguing for the group's right to free speech.
    • The Illinois Courts:
      The Illinois courts initially sided with the Village of Skokie, issuing an injunction that prohibited the NSPA from marching and displaying certain materials.
    • The Supreme Court's Decision:
      The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Illinois Supreme Court had erred by denying the NSPA's request for a stay pending appeal.
    • The Ruling's Significance:
      The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of free speech, even for unpopular or offensive views, and set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech and hate speech. "
    • Google.
    • 
      
    • 
      

Marching is one thing. What I have described as applicable in the Khalil case is quite different. I would appreciate if you would at least acknowledge what I have argued instead of seeming to pretend you didn't see or read any of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The protesters terrorizing others.

You know what I meant. Stop dancing.

Terrorizing is such a vague term.

I don't believe you know what you mean, other than "disagree."

I guess I terrorize you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the very competent legal explanations in the links I have provided.

Of course it does.