> Rather, Rubio wrote Khalil could be expelled for his beliefs. He said that while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the country would undermine “U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.”
The way I read that, it's even more dangerous than it looked at first.
I'm from France and so we have the whole hate speech limitation to freedom of speech, that I agree with, it works but has to be well defined and limited to specifical type of things.
What the US gov is arguing here if I'm not mistaken, is that if the US gov wants to go in direction X, anyone arguing for another direction can now be deported even if everything they do and say is technically legal to. You simply have to apply that thinking to anything that isn't as polarized as israel/palestine to see how dangerous of a point of view it is. If the judge don't stop that, I don't see how that can lead to anything other than political persecution of the opposition.
The way I read it, if a foreigner living in the US says it would be wrong for the US to invade Canada or take over Greenland, or bomb Houthis, etc. than the could be deported because that would "compromise a compelling U.S.foreign policy interest."
It doesn't even have the "clear and present danger" requirement of Schenck v. United States - the infamous "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" Supreme Court case largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited government action to only speech likely "likely to incite or produce [imminent lawless] action."
When talking about fundamental rights (like say, the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or ...), I don't understand the thinking that only some people should have them based on some legal criteria. I'm talking out of my ass here but it feels like the kind of legacy that is carried by having stuff like slavery and the like where humans were not equals.
I guess this is why in France we call those fundamental rights human rights and not citizens rights.
My point being: I don't see how the difference you give provides anything other that than the ability to abuse some groups, I don't see any advantage from it.
For how long will it apply only to non-citizens? Trump is trying to figure out a way to deport citizens. Admittedly, the citizens are actual criminals, but how long will it be possible not to be a criminal for one thing or another? It appears that disagreeing with the administration is enough for them to at least consider if they can do it.
So far they've already detained a lawyer who is an american citizen when he was reentering the country, and tried to grill him for inside information on cases he's actively working and people he knows. They eventually let him go, but they targeted him specifically and knew his name and significance, and he was defending one of the student protesters.
They even called a "tactical terrorism response team".
Oh, and check out how you can find them being used in already opaque and sinister ways back in 2021 under Biden, and earlier.
ICE posted (and later deleted) a picture on their official Twitter account that showed the things they were tasked with preventing from crossing the border. The last thing listed was IDEAS.
What all the enablers and participants of such policies need to grasp is that they will be tried, convicted and serve long prison sentences for their part in this government criminality. Ironically, only Trump will get off.
The rub and door-opener is really herein: "while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the country would undermine [the administration's policy]"
If those who preach Law and Order were serious about the Law part, you could not just punish people without them having broken a law. Also, the law must have been the result of deliberations of a democratic institution (Congress, state assemblies) and be published (no secret laws in democratic countries). You can't just make up rules and then go punish people for not acting according to the rules. There's already a backdoor in this in that a law may stipulate that the executive branch may issue executive orders and similar things like very specific building codes (the law states building must be safe, unsafe buildings must be fixed, which institutions are responsible to look after compliance with the rules, and the institution can change the rules without needing to change a law, like the FDA banning additives and so on). But even then the 'rules' are about the nitty-gritty, the 'laws' define the outlines, and breaking a rule is still indirectly breaking a law which says you gotta stick to those rules.
The message is "we can detain and / or expel you at will and act with impunity" which is maybe some kind of Order I guess but not Lawful.
Why would they do this? They have the power to deport him without cause, without reason. Why do this? I mean, this guy is an "easy target". He's disruptive. He organized protests where violence was committed, lots of damage was done. They got arrested (and not for protesting, for breaking and entering). He's frankly criminally liable, but that would be difficult to get to stick, but it's definitely not nothing.
And, if the government can't bring itself to be reasonable about this, then they can just keep their fine mouths shut. They have the right to say nothing at all and just deport him!
SO WHY DO THIS? Is it so difficult to even pretend to uphold the law?
And yes, I feel like this person cannot reasonably claim to be pro-Palestina, he wants Israel eradicated. He does not have a reasonable position. Frankly, Mr. Kahil is vile. I find it very hard to support this particular individual.
But the government's attitude in this (and other) cases ...
Of course, it is somewhat dishonest for AP to cite a memo by Rubio as the statement of law. It is not. The judge's decision uses entirely different factors. As cited by the judge:
1) Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence”
This means: nothing in the government's argument mattered to the judge (a tragically common occurrence in Trump's administration cases). EXCEPT for one thing: that they brought the case at all. The judge even mentions that she was happy the administration brought a case at all, since they didn't need to. The law does not require it to deport Mr Kahil.
2) All counterarguments centered around free speech could not be used in the decision since this wasn't about free speech. The government is not preventing Mr. Kahil from saying whatever he wants about them (in fact they allowed an interview with him, which was very widely published)
I find it somewhat dishonest that a memo of the department of state is used as if it was the judge's reasoning when obviously it was not.
I don't think you have the facts of the matter or the context right here. The government absolutely does not have the right to expel legal permanent residents without due process. And 'keeping their mouths shut' and pretending otherwise is not even remotely, feasibly "reasonable". The Supreme Court literally just ruled that residents with much less legal status than this person must be given due process -- an entirely obvious statement. But one which apparently needs to be reaffirmed by the highest court in the land because of how casually this administration seems to discard basic tenets of U.S. law. So you're just outright wrong.
The government absolutely did prevent this person from 'saying whatever he wants' -- he was essentially abducted from New Jersey and sent to detention in Louisiana without the ability to contact his family or his lawyer, or get any sort of hearing. It's only after the fact, due to the work of his lawyers and the public outcry, that he was able to submit a habeas petition. You seem to be downplaying how violent and seemingly corrupt the government's actions were in this case (I guess because you ultimately disagree with whatever you imagine this person did). Just because one Louisiana DoJ immigration judge sided with their own branch of government doesn't really lend plausibility to the government's case.
Because we wouldn't be talking about it if it had been for no reason. The government is leveraging cases it knows it will likely lose for the publicity.
I'm sure they believe that the publicity will discourage further anti-Semitism... And it likely will.
The result isn't about this specific case. This set the precedent to allow ICE to come and pick up random people and get them deported. This is called opening the floodgates. People don't really understand or see the distinction until it's too late. Then they're deported. Don't be fooled or be a fool. They will come for you as everybody has a turn.
The US has been exporting it's contradictions for a very long time,and is now turning to deporting those that contradict the official line.
It's quite clear that the American people are not in support of what is bieng done, and that is most evident in the total lack of support for American troops bieng deployed in any of the conflicts currently happening.
Certainly, the whole mess is becoming less tenable with even the supream court getting uncomfortable with people, any people, bieng dissapeared off the street by masked, ununiformed, armed "agents" acting without legal warants.
Now that purely political policy is bieng "protected" by deporting those that dissagre, it is a short step for the government to act against anyone, and the next step will be to do as the Britishers are, and strip citizenship from people who oppose the govenments policy, again without warant or charges.
> the American people are not in support of what is being done
Some very much are in support of this, others very much aren't, and whole bunch more (possibly a majority of people) don't even know this is happening.
actual support would be long lines of volunteers at the military recruiting office, right
instead of the reality, where the standard for enlistment are bieng lowered, while the percentage of people failing to pass the standards, is riseing.
The military is expilisit in stateing that finding high intelligence recruits for officer training is esspecialy challenging.
Which brings us to a military reality, ie: it is one thing to defeat an army, but another thing entirely to occupy an enemy country.
And now that warefare is entering a new age, with
drone's and all other types of remote controlled weapons, and every country is developing these weapons, maintaing an occupation is going to become even more dangerous for those, in the proverbial boots.
Betcha it's grim looks at westpoint.
Actual support is willingness to vote for it again and being ready to accept any excuse so that you don't have to vote for the other side.
This is a thing republicans and their voters are 100% ok with as long as it is not democrat picking people. They are a bit scared by possible inflation. But this is a wanted bonus for them.
The USA government position on anything does not represent the people's views on something. The government does not groupthink for the people even though the criminals in the government seem to think so. Rubio and his family will eventually be picked up by ICE if this process were allowed to continue indefinitely. But Rubio and his criminal friends will all still be locked up for a long time. They just haven't realized that their liberty will be limited shortly.
> Rather, Rubio wrote Khalil could be expelled for his beliefs. He said that while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the country would undermine “U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.”
The way I read that, it's even more dangerous than it looked at first.
I'm from France and so we have the whole hate speech limitation to freedom of speech, that I agree with, it works but has to be well defined and limited to specifical type of things.
What the US gov is arguing here if I'm not mistaken, is that if the US gov wants to go in direction X, anyone arguing for another direction can now be deported even if everything they do and say is technically legal to. You simply have to apply that thinking to anything that isn't as polarized as israel/palestine to see how dangerous of a point of view it is. If the judge don't stop that, I don't see how that can lead to anything other than political persecution of the opposition.
> If the judge don't stop that, I don't see how that can lead to anything other than political persecution of the opposition.
Or worse, a chilling effect
The way I read it, if a foreigner living in the US says it would be wrong for the US to invade Canada or take over Greenland, or bomb Houthis, etc. than the could be deported because that would "compromise a compelling U.S.foreign policy interest."
It doesn't even have the "clear and present danger" requirement of Schenck v. United States - the infamous "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" Supreme Court case largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited government action to only speech likely "likely to incite or produce [imminent lawless] action."
Also, beyond that. These policies do not make it safer for Jewish people, rather it makes it less safe.
This applies to non-citizens only. In principle, the second generation should be fine
When talking about fundamental rights (like say, the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or ...), I don't understand the thinking that only some people should have them based on some legal criteria. I'm talking out of my ass here but it feels like the kind of legacy that is carried by having stuff like slavery and the like where humans were not equals.
I guess this is why in France we call those fundamental rights human rights and not citizens rights.
My point being: I don't see how the difference you give provides anything other that than the ability to abuse some groups, I don't see any advantage from it.
i suspect you're joking here, but there are people who think this only applies to non-citizens and that they don't deserve due process.
so this is for those people... they can just declare citizens as non-citizens with the same lack of due process and now we're all in the same boat.
can we trust this administration on principles ?
Why risk prosecutorial discretion or judicial review when they pick the judges and are eager to set precedent, test theories
What’s a visa, green card or naturalization certificate worth when they can make you disappear without consequence?
For how long will it apply only to non-citizens? Trump is trying to figure out a way to deport citizens. Admittedly, the citizens are actual criminals, but how long will it be possible not to be a criminal for one thing or another? It appears that disagreeing with the administration is enough for them to at least consider if they can do it.
So far they've already detained a lawyer who is an american citizen when he was reentering the country, and tried to grill him for inside information on cases he's actively working and people he knows. They eventually let him go, but they targeted him specifically and knew his name and significance, and he was defending one of the student protesters.
They even called a "tactical terrorism response team".
Oh, and check out how you can find them being used in already opaque and sinister ways back in 2021 under Biden, and earlier.
You do the math.
It seems to me also that ICE is slowly transforming itself into brownshirt arm of the government, ready to do whatever with no concerns over legality.
its not slow at all
ICE posted (and later deleted) a picture on their official Twitter account that showed the things they were tasked with preventing from crossing the border. The last thing listed was IDEAS.
What all the enablers and participants of such policies need to grasp is that they will be tried, convicted and serve long prison sentences for their part in this government criminality. Ironically, only Trump will get off.
And the impact on FDI and skill imports to support US based tech start ups? Almost certainly not good.
The rub and door-opener is really herein: "while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the country would undermine [the administration's policy]"
If those who preach Law and Order were serious about the Law part, you could not just punish people without them having broken a law. Also, the law must have been the result of deliberations of a democratic institution (Congress, state assemblies) and be published (no secret laws in democratic countries). You can't just make up rules and then go punish people for not acting according to the rules. There's already a backdoor in this in that a law may stipulate that the executive branch may issue executive orders and similar things like very specific building codes (the law states building must be safe, unsafe buildings must be fixed, which institutions are responsible to look after compliance with the rules, and the institution can change the rules without needing to change a law, like the FDA banning additives and so on). But even then the 'rules' are about the nitty-gritty, the 'laws' define the outlines, and breaking a rule is still indirectly breaking a law which says you gotta stick to those rules.
The message is "we can detain and / or expel you at will and act with impunity" which is maybe some kind of Order I guess but not Lawful.
Either have a Bill of Rights or a king. These are mutually exclusive.
Why would they do this? They have the power to deport him without cause, without reason. Why do this? I mean, this guy is an "easy target". He's disruptive. He organized protests where violence was committed, lots of damage was done. They got arrested (and not for protesting, for breaking and entering). He's frankly criminally liable, but that would be difficult to get to stick, but it's definitely not nothing.
And, if the government can't bring itself to be reasonable about this, then they can just keep their fine mouths shut. They have the right to say nothing at all and just deport him!
SO WHY DO THIS? Is it so difficult to even pretend to uphold the law?
And yes, I feel like this person cannot reasonably claim to be pro-Palestina, he wants Israel eradicated. He does not have a reasonable position. Frankly, Mr. Kahil is vile. I find it very hard to support this particular individual.
But the government's attitude in this (and other) cases ...
Of course, it is somewhat dishonest for AP to cite a memo by Rubio as the statement of law. It is not. The judge's decision uses entirely different factors. As cited by the judge:
1) Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence”
This means: nothing in the government's argument mattered to the judge (a tragically common occurrence in Trump's administration cases). EXCEPT for one thing: that they brought the case at all. The judge even mentions that she was happy the administration brought a case at all, since they didn't need to. The law does not require it to deport Mr Kahil.
2) All counterarguments centered around free speech could not be used in the decision since this wasn't about free speech. The government is not preventing Mr. Kahil from saying whatever he wants about them (in fact they allowed an interview with him, which was very widely published)
I find it somewhat dishonest that a memo of the department of state is used as if it was the judge's reasoning when obviously it was not.
I don't think you have the facts of the matter or the context right here. The government absolutely does not have the right to expel legal permanent residents without due process. And 'keeping their mouths shut' and pretending otherwise is not even remotely, feasibly "reasonable". The Supreme Court literally just ruled that residents with much less legal status than this person must be given due process -- an entirely obvious statement. But one which apparently needs to be reaffirmed by the highest court in the land because of how casually this administration seems to discard basic tenets of U.S. law. So you're just outright wrong.
The government absolutely did prevent this person from 'saying whatever he wants' -- he was essentially abducted from New Jersey and sent to detention in Louisiana without the ability to contact his family or his lawyer, or get any sort of hearing. It's only after the fact, due to the work of his lawyers and the public outcry, that he was able to submit a habeas petition. You seem to be downplaying how violent and seemingly corrupt the government's actions were in this case (I guess because you ultimately disagree with whatever you imagine this person did). Just because one Louisiana DoJ immigration judge sided with their own branch of government doesn't really lend plausibility to the government's case.
Because we wouldn't be talking about it if it had been for no reason. The government is leveraging cases it knows it will likely lose for the publicity.
I'm sure they believe that the publicity will discourage further anti-Semitism... And it likely will.
The result isn't about this specific case. This set the precedent to allow ICE to come and pick up random people and get them deported. This is called opening the floodgates. People don't really understand or see the distinction until it's too late. Then they're deported. Don't be fooled or be a fool. They will come for you as everybody has a turn.
Beliefs? No.
Actions? That’s a different story.
Does mere speech of your beliefs count?
Actions are protected too, as long as they’re not causing direct and immediate harm.
The US has been exporting it's contradictions for a very long time,and is now turning to deporting those that contradict the official line. It's quite clear that the American people are not in support of what is bieng done, and that is most evident in the total lack of support for American troops bieng deployed in any of the conflicts currently happening. Certainly, the whole mess is becoming less tenable with even the supream court getting uncomfortable with people, any people, bieng dissapeared off the street by masked, ununiformed, armed "agents" acting without legal warants. Now that purely political policy is bieng "protected" by deporting those that dissagre, it is a short step for the government to act against anyone, and the next step will be to do as the Britishers are, and strip citizenship from people who oppose the govenments policy, again without warant or charges.
> the American people are not in support of what is being done
Some very much are in support of this, others very much aren't, and whole bunch more (possibly a majority of people) don't even know this is happening.
actual support would be long lines of volunteers at the military recruiting office, right instead of the reality, where the standard for enlistment are bieng lowered, while the percentage of people failing to pass the standards, is riseing. The military is expilisit in stateing that finding high intelligence recruits for officer training is esspecialy challenging. Which brings us to a military reality, ie: it is one thing to defeat an army, but another thing entirely to occupy an enemy country. And now that warefare is entering a new age, with drone's and all other types of remote controlled weapons, and every country is developing these weapons, maintaing an occupation is going to become even more dangerous for those, in the proverbial boots. Betcha it's grim looks at westpoint.
Actual support is willingness to vote for it again and being ready to accept any excuse so that you don't have to vote for the other side.
This is a thing republicans and their voters are 100% ok with as long as it is not democrat picking people. They are a bit scared by possible inflation. But this is a wanted bonus for them.
The USA government position on anything does not represent the people's views on something. The government does not groupthink for the people even though the criminals in the government seem to think so. Rubio and his family will eventually be picked up by ICE if this process were allowed to continue indefinitely. But Rubio and his criminal friends will all still be locked up for a long time. They just haven't realized that their liberty will be limited shortly.