The government's arrest and detention of a pro-Palestinian Columbia student (and green card holder) raises difficult questions about both technical immigration statutes and the First Amendment.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
This is a fantastic post on this topic, however, I have to disagree with the conclusion that any of this is about First Amendment protected speech. It isn't Khalil's advocacy (i.e., the content of his speech) for Palestine that put him on the government's radar - millions of people advocate for Palestine/Hamas every day in writing, including aliens. What got Khalil on the government's radar was his alleged participation in the occupation of Hamilton Hall and Milgren. That first event resulted in the university needing police to arrest the occupiers; the second event resulted in an assault on a security guard, a bomb threat, and another unauthorized occupation of private property. The occupations are (arguably) a violation of federal law too, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which does not permit universities receiving public funds to permit the creation of a hostile environment for a class of students.
We can argue about whether "Globalize the Intifada!" chants from students who break into and occupy (and claim exclusive domain over) certain areas of the university results in a Title VI violation, but it is hard to see the occupations as "speech". To the extent speech was involved at all, it was ancillary to the violent trespass - a crime. How does speech legalize trespass on private property, assaulting security guards, acts of vandalism like breaking windows etc.? Khalil was allegedly involved in all of those acts. It seems to me that the government wants to deport aliens who break into buildings and assault security guards; the speech used to justify those actions appears to have no bearing whatsoever, and definitely doesn't create a shield to somehow legalize otherwise criminal activity.
Quite right. Trespass, assault, criminal damage to property are not speech. The First Amendment claim is a straw man asserting that Khalil is merely being persecuted for his opinions. He is not. However, according to his lawyers, Khalil has not been charged with a crime. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
It seems likely that 1) moving Khalil to LA to engage in a Habeas fight was on purpose to drag this out and 2) the end result will be there are no First Amendment protections for non-citizens engaged in "endorsing terrorism" and SCOTUS will permit Republican prosecutors to use such a basis with great deference. A few years later 3) The same principle will apply to citizens as well to crush dissent.
Seems to me, trespass (and associated bad acts, assault etc) with the intent of advocating for Palestinians in Gaza does not, without more, equate to espousing or endorsing terrorism - unless the gov can prove the defendant actually endorsed or espoused Hamas. So, what did he actually say/do from which one could legally infer the intent to "endorse" or "espouse"? (Fascinating and important case.)
I agree with your last point. I don't agree that it will apply to citizens, however. The administration's willful misreading of the 14th Amendment will allow it to reclassify almost everyone it disagrees with as a non-citizen.
Playing hide the ball with fact that Padilla was a citizen being detained as an enemy combatant in order to pretend that its applicable precedent in detention incident to an LPR rescission that at the time of arrest the state department believed was a visa overstay is perverse. you are giving these monsters too much leeway.
Prof Vladeck - kudos to you on your recent efforts to try and keep up with all of the disruptive (e.g. horrible) efforts of Trump and his administration to 'flood the zone.' What makes this action even more cruel is that Khalil's wife is eight months pregnant. I think the legal argument that Kahlil's peaceful demonstration and related speech provides the Secretary of State a sufficient basis for claiming his (Kahlil's) activities "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States" is feeble.
Though Kahlil's predicament is much more dire, I think his detention is another example of how Republicans are behaving badly when faced with opposing viewpoints or criticism. GOP leaders have told their rank and file to completely stop holding town hall meetings because their hometown crowds were overwhelmingly angry and critical of the lawmakers. Reluctance to face potential criticism is also what motivated Trump's decision to exclude reputable media outlets from various venues. We all need to fight back ferociously against these despicable actions. Not only is it anti-democratic, and un-American, it is plain wrong.
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
I don't know what else he might have done but what hundreds of college and university students do every year, stage a sit-in. Can we believe what other reports of his activities he might be charged with? Can we ever believe gov, professionals, police, or other authorities after all the covid-lies, the WMD-lies, the Jan6th lies, Oct7th lies, .. when have they not lied?
Unrelated to this specific case, my question is at what point can the ICC UN judges be charged with genocide support for dragging the S. African charge of Genocide investigation? And why are Yemen, Hizballah, Hamas, (and Iranian assistance) called terrorists for being the only peoples with honor and virtue enough to actively oppose genocide and support Palestinians?
Those men and women clearly show the West and Arab and others peoples, we, as less then Pig-vomit, virtueless, soul-crippled, Zionist mind-raped, walking bags of putrid poison dog-shit for passively watching this genocide.
At least those actively protesting are trying to do something, and every one of you and me are not worth to whip their asses. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
Was he directly involved in those activities other than trespassing that hundreds of students do every year as part of protests on campus? Unless we see him on video doing those activities why should we believe anything gov says he did, What FBI plants will testify?
Meth Bear, you still think Jan6th was anything other than FBI Plants breaking in one entrance, with Capital police inviting rest people to enter, most walking within the red fuzzy ropes? Do you still believe a police man was killed, beaten by fire extinguisher? That social-media didn't contrive to censored Pres. Trumps appeal for non-violence, or any other communication to us, that Zionist owned vile corporations more powerful than entire nations did not block attempts to prevent violence?
How else can you show us that you are a Corp-Media NPC programmed Golem ready to parrot anything they say? Perhaps not human but an AI the USAID monies paid-for to divide and lie and cause loss of trust in our humanities? A machine to cause others to waste time and resources on?
Meth Bear, if you are real .. imagine you have the virtue of the least of them and joined a protest against flag-burning, for example. An as the network cameras start recording and streaming an FBI plant gets in front waving a Nazi Flag, should we all think you Meth Bear, standing with a sign saying 'no flag burning' is a KKK member, a Nazi, a terrorist?
The least energetic protester in that movement is less a mound of Genocidal silent supporting bag of vomit them most of us doing nothing. "Oh, if I lived in Germany when Nazis came to power I'd ..I'd .. I'd suck their giant strap-ons" - clearly.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
You write "if the government had said that 'there’s one specific LPR who is responsible for a unique amount of unlawful behavior relating to pro-Palestinian protests, and his case is special,' that would be one thing. But ...Trump’s social media post makes clear that, at least from his perspective, Khalil’s is not a special case." While I don't doubt that Trump hasn't given the case much thought, I wonder if there is any evidence that Kahlil is in fact a "special case." Is there some evidence we don't know about yet? Could he have participated in or led any of the violent activities at Columbia, such as the break-in at Hamilton Hall, for example? Curious if these kinds of assertions may be made as the case progresses. I agree though that lacking any charge more substantive "what the government has done to this point is profoundly disturbing." In fact, so far, most of what the current government generally has done is super-disturbing and this is no different.
That would be a criminal charge, which no one involved in the arrest or the post hoc justifications for their fuck up with that has indicated any charges have been filed anywhere, let alone any judicial determination of probable cause for detention on that basis. And even if there were, venue would have to be in SDNY for that prosecution and could only go to LA after notice and a hearing on a motion for change of venue.
Very confusing to claim it’s just because he was “pro-Palestinian”. He was explicitly pro-terrorist. He organized protests occupying campus buildings illegally, where Hamas propaganda and leaflets were handed out; he led that. He also gave interviews to a Hamas news network. He also explicitly leads an organization (CUAD) that praises Hamas and openly endorses terrorism.
The worst part is people conflating “pro-Palestinian” with “pro-terrorism”, which is what he is.
Thank you very much for making the effort to write this.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
Double that thank you for me.
First they came for the Palestinians...
Then they came for the false equivalences. (No one is coming for Palestinians qua Palestinian)
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
Inhumanity? In arresting and attempting to deport a scumbag like Khalil? https://x.com/ryanmauro/status/1899348525298729368
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
I’m even more depressed after reading this but happy I’m more informed. What a country.
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
Looks like an alternative.
Fascinating, thank you
This is a fantastic post on this topic, however, I have to disagree with the conclusion that any of this is about First Amendment protected speech. It isn't Khalil's advocacy (i.e., the content of his speech) for Palestine that put him on the government's radar - millions of people advocate for Palestine/Hamas every day in writing, including aliens. What got Khalil on the government's radar was his alleged participation in the occupation of Hamilton Hall and Milgren. That first event resulted in the university needing police to arrest the occupiers; the second event resulted in an assault on a security guard, a bomb threat, and another unauthorized occupation of private property. The occupations are (arguably) a violation of federal law too, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which does not permit universities receiving public funds to permit the creation of a hostile environment for a class of students.
We can argue about whether "Globalize the Intifada!" chants from students who break into and occupy (and claim exclusive domain over) certain areas of the university results in a Title VI violation, but it is hard to see the occupations as "speech". To the extent speech was involved at all, it was ancillary to the violent trespass - a crime. How does speech legalize trespass on private property, assaulting security guards, acts of vandalism like breaking windows etc.? Khalil was allegedly involved in all of those acts. It seems to me that the government wants to deport aliens who break into buildings and assault security guards; the speech used to justify those actions appears to have no bearing whatsoever, and definitely doesn't create a shield to somehow legalize otherwise criminal activity.
Quite right. Trespass, assault, criminal damage to property are not speech. The First Amendment claim is a straw man asserting that Khalil is merely being persecuted for his opinions. He is not. However, according to his lawyers, Khalil has not been charged with a crime. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
Begging the question: what are the alleged FACTS of this case? Hopefully when we know, Steve V. will write another analysis.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
It seems likely that 1) moving Khalil to LA to engage in a Habeas fight was on purpose to drag this out and 2) the end result will be there are no First Amendment protections for non-citizens engaged in "endorsing terrorism" and SCOTUS will permit Republican prosecutors to use such a basis with great deference. A few years later 3) The same principle will apply to citizens as well to crush dissent.
Seems to me, trespass (and associated bad acts, assault etc) with the intent of advocating for Palestinians in Gaza does not, without more, equate to espousing or endorsing terrorism - unless the gov can prove the defendant actually endorsed or espoused Hamas. So, what did he actually say/do from which one could legally infer the intent to "endorse" or "espouse"? (Fascinating and important case.)
I agree with your last point. I don't agree that it will apply to citizens, however. The administration's willful misreading of the 14th Amendment will allow it to reclassify almost everyone it disagrees with as a non-citizen.
Playing hide the ball with fact that Padilla was a citizen being detained as an enemy combatant in order to pretend that its applicable precedent in detention incident to an LPR rescission that at the time of arrest the state department believed was a visa overstay is perverse. you are giving these monsters too much leeway.
Prof Vladeck - kudos to you on your recent efforts to try and keep up with all of the disruptive (e.g. horrible) efforts of Trump and his administration to 'flood the zone.' What makes this action even more cruel is that Khalil's wife is eight months pregnant. I think the legal argument that Kahlil's peaceful demonstration and related speech provides the Secretary of State a sufficient basis for claiming his (Kahlil's) activities "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States" is feeble.
Though Kahlil's predicament is much more dire, I think his detention is another example of how Republicans are behaving badly when faced with opposing viewpoints or criticism. GOP leaders have told their rank and file to completely stop holding town hall meetings because their hometown crowds were overwhelmingly angry and critical of the lawmakers. Reluctance to face potential criticism is also what motivated Trump's decision to exclude reputable media outlets from various venues. We all need to fight back ferociously against these despicable actions. Not only is it anti-democratic, and un-American, it is plain wrong.
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
I don't know what else he might have done but what hundreds of college and university students do every year, stage a sit-in. Can we believe what other reports of his activities he might be charged with? Can we ever believe gov, professionals, police, or other authorities after all the covid-lies, the WMD-lies, the Jan6th lies, Oct7th lies, .. when have they not lied?
Unrelated to this specific case, my question is at what point can the ICC UN judges be charged with genocide support for dragging the S. African charge of Genocide investigation? And why are Yemen, Hizballah, Hamas, (and Iranian assistance) called terrorists for being the only peoples with honor and virtue enough to actively oppose genocide and support Palestinians?
Those men and women clearly show the West and Arab and others peoples, we, as less then Pig-vomit, virtueless, soul-crippled, Zionist mind-raped, walking bags of putrid poison dog-shit for passively watching this genocide.
At least those actively protesting are trying to do something, and every one of you and me are not worth to whip their asses. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
Thank you for this post tonight. It is helpful in clarifying the different aspects and possibilities going forward.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
Was he directly involved in those activities other than trespassing that hundreds of students do every year as part of protests on campus? Unless we see him on video doing those activities why should we believe anything gov says he did, What FBI plants will testify?
Meth Bear, you still think Jan6th was anything other than FBI Plants breaking in one entrance, with Capital police inviting rest people to enter, most walking within the red fuzzy ropes? Do you still believe a police man was killed, beaten by fire extinguisher? That social-media didn't contrive to censored Pres. Trumps appeal for non-violence, or any other communication to us, that Zionist owned vile corporations more powerful than entire nations did not block attempts to prevent violence?
How else can you show us that you are a Corp-Media NPC programmed Golem ready to parrot anything they say? Perhaps not human but an AI the USAID monies paid-for to divide and lie and cause loss of trust in our humanities? A machine to cause others to waste time and resources on?
Meth Bear, if you are real .. imagine you have the virtue of the least of them and joined a protest against flag-burning, for example. An as the network cameras start recording and streaming an FBI plant gets in front waving a Nazi Flag, should we all think you Meth Bear, standing with a sign saying 'no flag burning' is a KKK member, a Nazi, a terrorist?
The least energetic protester in that movement is less a mound of Genocidal silent supporting bag of vomit them most of us doing nothing. "Oh, if I lived in Germany when Nazis came to power I'd ..I'd .. I'd suck their giant strap-ons" - clearly.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
You write "if the government had said that 'there’s one specific LPR who is responsible for a unique amount of unlawful behavior relating to pro-Palestinian protests, and his case is special,' that would be one thing. But ...Trump’s social media post makes clear that, at least from his perspective, Khalil’s is not a special case." While I don't doubt that Trump hasn't given the case much thought, I wonder if there is any evidence that Kahlil is in fact a "special case." Is there some evidence we don't know about yet? Could he have participated in or led any of the violent activities at Columbia, such as the break-in at Hamilton Hall, for example? Curious if these kinds of assertions may be made as the case progresses. I agree though that lacking any charge more substantive "what the government has done to this point is profoundly disturbing." In fact, so far, most of what the current government generally has done is super-disturbing and this is no different.
That would be a criminal charge, which no one involved in the arrest or the post hoc justifications for their fuck up with that has indicated any charges have been filed anywhere, let alone any judicial determination of probable cause for detention on that basis. And even if there were, venue would have to be in SDNY for that prosecution and could only go to LA after notice and a hearing on a motion for change of venue.
Very confusing to claim it’s just because he was “pro-Palestinian”. He was explicitly pro-terrorist. He organized protests occupying campus buildings illegally, where Hamas propaganda and leaflets were handed out; he led that. He also gave interviews to a Hamas news network. He also explicitly leads an organization (CUAD) that praises Hamas and openly endorses terrorism.
The worst part is people conflating “pro-Palestinian” with “pro-terrorism”, which is what he is.