What an odd coincidence.

[Delldude]

It wasn't overturned based upon the merits of the case but a technical ruling.

Yet it was overturned.

So its moot.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Court Rules Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawsuit Challenging His Unlawful Detention by ICE Should Move Forward in New Jersey | American Civil Liberties Union

This comes after ICE arrested Mr. Khalil for his support for Palestinian rights and sent him to a detention facility 1,400 miles away from his family

www.aclu.org

lol!


What do you think the court in New Jersey is going to do? Order Trump to send a plane to get Mahmoud and bring him back?

A visa is a privilege not a right. He is obviously an undesirable. That’s why you carefully avoid explicitly defending him.

Your concern is not about the constitution. If you was on a student visa from Germany and was organizing anti-Arab protest as the leader of a white supremacist group, you would want him gone yesterday.

Difference between you and I use that I would want him gone yesterday also. I went all undesirables, no matter what reason they are undesirable, to have their visas pulled and be sent packing.

 

[Delldude]

lol!


What do you think the court in New Jersey is going to do? Order Trump to send a plane to get Mahmoud and bring him back?

A visa is a privilege not a right. He is obviously an undesirable. That’s why you carefully avoid explicitly defending him.

Your concern is not about the constitution. If you was on a student visa from Germany and was organizing anti-Arab protest as the leader of a white supremacist group, you would want him gone yesterday.

Difference between you and I use that I would want him gone yesterday also. I went all undesirables, no matter what reason they are undesirable, to have their visas pulled and be sent packing.

Notice it's not cool when Trump goes judge shopping.

 

[berg80]

It has been far too widely reported for you to play the “prove it” card.

Google his name and you’ll see multiple lefty news sites complaining that’s he was deported for leading protests.

View attachment 1092980

Did you not understand my request? I was asking to show evidence he was arrested for being an "organizer of anti -Semitic violence."

 

[berg80]

The courts ruled the law is constitutional.

Bye-bye Mahmoud!

Link please.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Protest is a free speech right, protected by the Constitution. It is not an example of "violence".

Attacks against Jews are not free speech even if antisemites like you call it such to try to justify them.

 

[pknopp]

lol!


What do you think the court in New Jersey is going to do? Order Trump to send a plane to get Mahmoud and bring him back?

The courts are going to force Trump to do things legally and not being able/willing to do that, the guy will likely buy his own ticket home.

A visa is a privilege not a right. He is obviously an undesirable. That’s why you carefully avoid explicitly defending him.

Your concern is not about the constitution. If you was on a student visa from Germany and was organizing anti-Arab protest as the leader of a white supremacist group, you would want him gone yesterday.

Nope.

Difference between you and I use that I would want him gone yesterday also. I went all undesirables, no matter what reason they are undesirable, to have their visas pulled and be sent packing.

I don't want you deciding who is "undesirable". We have seen the ultimate outcome of that.

 

[pknopp]

Attacks against Jews are not free speech even if antisemites like you call it such to try to justify them.

Who did he attack? If he attacked someone he can be charged with that.

 

[Delldude]

It's about those who piss on the Constitution.

But it's ok for 235 progressive judges to do it?

 

[pknopp]

But it's ok for 235 progressive judges to do it?

No idea what your vast generalization is supposed to be about.

 

[Delldude]

Attacks against Jews are not free speech even if antisemites like you call it such to try to justify them.

Depends on what the definition of attacks is.

No idea what your vast generalization is supposed to be about.

TROs against Trump.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did you not understand my request? I was asking to show evidence he was arrested for being an "organizer of anti -Semitic violence."

I never said that he was arrested for that.

Link please.

Post in thread 'What an odd coincidence.'
What an odd coincidence.

The courts are going to force Trump to do things legally and not being able/willing to do that, the guy will likely buy his own ticket home.

So he will self deport? Did Columbia expel him?

I don't want you deciding who is "undesirable". We have seen the ultimate outcome of that.

Marco Rubio decided that.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-alleges-columbia-student-covered-up-his-work-unrwa-2025-03-24/

The ACLU can keep Judge shopping, but eventually this Supreme Court will stomp on them.

 

[berg80]

lol!


What do you think the court in New Jersey is going to do? Order Trump to send a plane to get Mahmoud and bring him back?

A visa is a privilege not a right. He is obviously an undesirable. That’s why you carefully avoid explicitly defending him.

Your concern is not about the constitution. If you was on a student visa from Germany and was organizing anti-Arab protest as the leader of a white supremacist group, you would want him gone yesterday.

Difference between you and I use that I would want him gone yesterday also. I went all undesirables, no matter what reason they are undesirable, to have their visas pulled and be sent packing.

The law, she wrote, “confers upon a single individual, the secretary of state, the unfettered and unreviewable discretion to deport any alien lawfully within the United States” if “that person’s mere presence here would impact in some unexplained way on the foreign policy interests of the United States.”

That violated the Constitution in at least two ways, Judge Barry wrote. First, she said, it was too vague to give notice to the people subject to it of what conduct it prohibited.
Under the law, she wrote, “all legal aliens, whether here for a day or 50 years and visiting or resident in this country, must live in fear of the secretary of state informing them, at any time, that our foreign policy requires their deportation to a particular country for reasons unknown to them and beyond their control.”

She emphasized that the law applied to, among others, “lifelong permanent residents.”

“For those who have been in this country for a substantial period of time,” she wrote, “it would mean the loss of all they had built for themselves here and an irreparable disruption of the lives they had established.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

The law, she wrote, “confers upon a single individual, the secretary of state, the unfettered and unreviewable discretion to deport any alien lawfully within the United States” if “that person’s mere presence here would impact in some unexplained way on the foreign policy interests of the United States.”

So like I said, Marco Rubio made the decision

That violated the Constitution in at least two ways, Judge Barry wrote. First, she said, it was too vague to give notice to the people subject to it of what conduct it prohibited.
Under the law, she wrote, “all legal aliens, whether here for a day or 50 years and visiting or resident in this country, must live in fear of the secretary of state informing them, at any time, that our foreign policy requires their deportation to a particular country for reasons unknown to them and beyond their control.”

She emphasized that the law applied to, among others, “lifelong permanent residents.”

A well thought out and lucid argument that was overturned by the higher court.

“For those who have been in this country for a substantial period of time,” she wrote, “it would mean the loss of all they had built for themselves here and an irreparable disruption of the lives they had established.”

Mahmoud’s Reputation was for organizing rallies in which property was occupied, and Jews were chased.

I’m sure the next Democratic President will welcome him back. Perhaps he can rebuild his tattered reputation.

 

[berg80]

No kidding, didn't realize you were a Mahmoud lover. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

There’s a pattern in Trump’s power grabs​

The White House strategy demands we defend alleged criminals and those with unpopular views.

Trump’s deportations: there’s a power to the power grabs

The White House strategy demands we defend alleged criminals and those with unpopular views.

www.vox.com

trump is banking on people not caring about violations of law because he's going after people who are disliked.

 

[Delldude]

trump is banking on people not caring about violations of law because he's going after people who are disliked.

What violations of law are we talking about?

 

[berg80]

Mahmoud’s Reputation was for organizing rallies in which property was occupied, and Jews were chased.

Yet he did not advocate for chasing them.

There is a reason why the Nazis targeted the groups on Niemöller’s list: German politics made them particularly easy to demonize. They were either vulnerable minorities (Jews) or politically controversial with the German mainstream (communists, socialists, trade unionists).
After rising to power, Nazis pitched power grabs as efforts to address the alleged threat posed by menaces like “Judeo-Bolshevism,” harnessing the powers of bigotry and political polarization to get ordinary Germans on board with the demolition of their democracy.
What’s happening in America right now has chilling echoes of this old tactic. When engaging in unlawful or boundary-pushing behavior, the Trump administration has typically gone after targets who are either highly polarizing or unpopular. The idea is to politicize basic civil liberties questions — to turn a defense of the rule of law into either a defense of widely hated groups or else an ordinary matter of partisan politics.

 

[berg80]

Attacks against Jews are not free speech even if antisemites like you call it such to try to justify them.

Advocating for Palestinians is not inherently anti-Semitic.

 

[Lesh]

Depends on what the definition of attacks is.

TROs against Trump.

It certainly does. And speech doesn’t qualify as “attack”

 

[berg80]

I never said that he was arrested for that.

You wrote........."Sounds like you’ll be thrilled to hav the organizer of anti -Semitic violence at our elite universities be allowed to return and get back to work."

You have a very slimy way of trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you write. I asked you to show he had been an "organizer of anti -Semitic violence." Like a cockroach you scurried away.