Remember Who We Are

[PoliticalChic]

Now come on my friend. That is not what I said or anything like that.

What crime has he been arrested for?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So are you saying that it is illegal (unconstitutional) to deport Khalil, or that you simply disagree with that action?

I say that he is a legal resident, and that the Constitution applies to him.

Permanent legal residents are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. In addition, permanent legal residents are protected and maintain rights as given by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law.

A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States - HUSL ...​

Howard University School of Law Library
https://library.law.howard.edu › immigration › rights
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
No statutes, case law, state laws, etc trump the Constitution. That's my position:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, protects fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

• Freedom of Speech:
  This protects the right to express oneself, even if the expression is unpopular or controversial.

https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

What crime has he been arrested for?

None but that has little or nothing to do with my comments in my posts. But oh well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

None but that has little or nothing to do with my comments in my posts. But oh well.

I went back and re-read the post.

Is this to which you refer?
"But also the law provides for the deportation of non citizens for some fairly narrowly defined situations and a person does not necessarily have to commit a crime in order to be justifiably deported."

I have no objection to re-addressing it.
The party in power has no end of 'laws' for targetting any they dislike.

Consider the 1500 Americans indicted, many sent away for inordinate prison terms, for nothing on Jan6.

We have to be careful not to do the same. Power is too easy to abuse.


I say we look at the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by...the Constitution.

A legal resident is governed by the Constitution.
And what does that document say about free speech?

 

[Foxfyre]

I went back and re-read the post.

Is this to which you refer?
"But also the law provides for the deportation of non citizens for some fairly narrowly defined situations and a person does not necessarily have to commit a crime in order to be justifiably deported."

I have no objection to re-addressing it.
The party in power has no end of 'laws' for targetting any they dislike.

Consider the 1500 Americans indicted, many sent away for inordinate prison terms, for nothing on Jan6.

We have to be careful not to do the same. Power is too easy to abuse.


I say we look at the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by...the Constitution.

A legal resident is governed by the Constitution.
And what does that document say about free speech?

Again you are comparing U.S. citizens exercising their constitutional right to peacefully assemble and address their government for redress of grievances--that is what the vast majority of the J6 protesters were--to a non-citizen campus agitator, antisemitic activist and supporter of a terrorist organization.

I don't see why legally applying different legal criteria to those two things should not be considered.

Also in this discussion I linked a scholarly analysis of the legal basis for expelling a non citizen from the country.

 

[sparky]

This is where we need to go back to the PA, and the formation of Homeland Security.

Both of which were seen as unconstitutional in their design in that they infringed on our freedoms

FF to current times, and we've our own gestapo deciding who is a domestic terrorist based on no more than their stance

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

This is where we need to go back to the PA, and the formation of Homeland Security.

Both of which were seen as unconstitutional in their design in that they infringed on our freedoms

FF to current times, and we've our own gestapo deciding who is a domestic terrorist based on no more than their stance

~S~

No the law is much clearer in what constitutes a domestic terrorist. However I have not described Khalil with that term. I don't know what basis you are using to say the DHS is unconstitutional. They have closed a border that the previous administration refused to do. They are removing truly dangerous and deadly bad actors from our midst.

Khalil is a different case though and different criteria would be used if he is in fact deported.

 

[sparky]

No the law is much clearer in what constitutes a domestic terrorist. However I have not described Khalil with that term. I don't know what basis you are using to say the DHS is unconstitutional. They have closed a border that the previous administration refused to do. They are removing truly dangerous and deadly bad actors from our midst.

Khalil is a different case though and different criteria would be used if he is in fact deported.

I'm pointing out where America turned the corner FF , spying on Americans, and or incarceration w/out due process , cruel unusual punishment was unconstitutional and at least done in the shadows via gub'mit prior.....

but that was a while ago, this is now>>>

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090

and the synopsis>

Loading…

www.acenet.edu

this was , to my understanding, a bit of a fight in Congress , with AIPAC insisting they throw the 1st under the bus

~S~

 

[toobfreak]

Preventing Jewish students is not a matter of speech and locking students in a building is kidnap.

This guy carried a green card. Fomenting violence against other students, doing so for no other reason than their race, and damaging the property of the university is not free speech, nor a protest. Try going to China or Russia or many other countries on a student visa and while there, foment riots, hate speech, attacks against citizens there and damage to the campus and find out just how quick you get your ass arrested if not kicked out of the country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again you are comparing U.S. citizens exercising their constitutional right to peacefully assemble and address their government for redress of grievances--that is what the vast majority of the J6 protesters were--to a non-citizen campus agitator, antisemitic activist and supporter of a terrorist organization.

I don't see why legally applying different legal criteria to those two things should not be considered.

Also in this discussion I linked a scholarly analysis of the legal basis for expelling a non citizen from the country.

Let me try again.....



Permanent legal residents are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. In addition, permanent legal residents are protected and maintain rights as given by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law.
Howard University School of Law Library
https://library.law.howard.edu › immigration › rights
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
No statutes, case law, state laws, etc trump the Constitution. That's my position:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, protects fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

• Freedom of Speech:
  This protects the right to express oneself, even if the expression is unpopular or controversial.

https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is where we need to go back to the PA, and the formation of Homeland Security.

Both of which were seen as unconstitutional in their design in that they infringed on our freedoms

FF to current times, and we've our own gestapo deciding who is a domestic terrorist based on no more than their stance

~S~

Here is a pertinent example...

"Woman Wearing MAGA Hat Denied Service, Threatened with Baseball Bat at Indianapolis Jazz Club"​

Woman Wearing MAGA Hat Denied Service, Threatened with Baseball Bat at Indianapolis Jazz Club

pjmedia.com

I believe the club was within their rights, if "private property" means anything in this country.

It was Goldwarter's view as well, when he voted against the Civil Rights Bill, and was labeled a racist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me try again.....



Permanent legal residents are protected under the laws of the United States and all local jurisdictions. In addition, permanent legal residents are protected and maintain rights as given by the Constitution, including due process of law and equal protection under the law.
Howard University School of Law Library
https://library.law.howard.edu › immigration › rights
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.
No statutes, case law, state laws, etc trump the Constitution. That's my position:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, protects fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

• Freedom of Speech:
  This protects the right to express oneself, even if the expression is unpopular or controversial.

https://library.law.howard.edu/civi...are protected,equal protection under the law.

I have not disputed that. I have only brought in additional considerations that are included in the equation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This guy carried a green card. Fomenting violence against other students, doing so for no other reason than their race, and damaging the property of the university is not free speech, nor a protest. Try going to China or Russia or many other countries on a student visa and while there, foment riots, hate speech, attacks against citizens there and damage to the campus and find out just how quick you get your ass arrested if not kicked out of the country.

Who was arrested for assaulting or kidnapping?

Assuming there was neither, what are you locking this guy up for?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have not disputed that. I have only brought in additional considerations that are included in the equation.

So we agree that he is protected by the Constitution?

And you wish him deported for disagreement, via speech?

C'mon.

 

[MisterBeale]

Pro-Palestine Activist Arrested & Faces Deportation!​

Mar 11, 2025

Academic Freedom at Columbia UNDER ASSAULT: Free Speech Expert Warns​

Mar 15, 2025

 

[sparky]

Let me try again.....

you can try PC

but there's always going to be some sort of threat, some manner of violence or destruction that negates any free speech concern

traditionally, it was the spooks that threw the first brick at a protest, and they all became criminals (can you say J6 ???)

now they don't even need the brick

~S~

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pro-Palestine Activist Arrested & Faces Deportation!​

Mar 11, 2025

Academic Freedom at Columbia UNDER ASSAULT: Free Speech Expert Warns​

Mar 15, 2025

I think I could have written that.

Wait.....I did!

 

[PoliticalChic]

you can try PC

but there's always going to be some sort of threat, some manner of violence or destruction that negates any free speech concern

traditionally, it was the spooks that threw the first brick at a protest, and they all became criminals (can you say J6 ???)

now they don't even need the brick

~S~

I fully understand the desire to punish folks we abhor, especially after what we on the Right have gone through for a decade or more.....

It is very difficult, when we hold the power, to see the line between rectitude, principles, and revenge.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm pointing out where America turned the corner FF , spying on Americans, and or incarceration w/out due process , cruel unusual punishment was unconstitutional and at least done in the shadows via gub'mit prior.....

but that was a while ago, this is now>>>

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090

and the synopsis>

Loading…

www.acenet.edu

this was , to my understanding, a bit of a fight in Congress , with AIPAC insisting they throw the 1st under the bus

~S~

My management sense though is that you don't blame the system when bad/incompetent/intentionally illegal people misuse it. And you can't fix a bad system by changing the people either. We just need good people, good systems, good policy put into place and maintained long enough that a future bad administration can't do so much damage with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So we agree that he is protected by the Constitution?

And you wish him deported for disagreement, via speech?

C'mon.

No you are still misrepresenting what I have argued. It involves much more than just speech.