Trump govt is deporting Green Card holder student exercising free speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I care much less about this loser than I do the Jewish American that will hopefully be returned by Hamas, along with four dead bodies. Let's protest for this return. He's actually an American.

Why not care about both? Elimination of this guy's civil liberties will impact you even if you think his politics suck.

They won't, because you'd never find me organizing an event to promote a terrorist organization. Especially if I wasn't born here and was fortunate to have procured a green card. I'd be protecting that thing like the gold it is.

This. Act like an obnoxious bully, reap the consequences.

Like Israel.

Steal Palestinian lands, massacre them, imprison them in refugee camps and then when they rise up to defend themselves, call them terrorists and reap the consequences.

Shhesh!

Don't you have your own thread so you and the Zionists can go and argue this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean to "support Hamas?"
Pledging allegience to Hamas would certainly count.
Transferring money to "Hamas Inc." via wire transfer would count.
Saying "I think Hamas' actions are justified" seems like a grey area.

Saying I want a cease fire and think Israel is committing genocide doesn't necessarily equate to "supporting Hamas." Did Hamas even want a cease-fire? Certainly on their terms, but that applies to any belligerent. For all we know he might hate Hamas and prefer the PLO or some other organization.

What evidence is there that the student "supported Hamas?" Merely asking for a ceasefire or asking Columbia to divest, would not seem to qualify as "supporting terrorism."

How 'bout this (which I posted earlier)?

Khalil acted as a negotiator and sometimes spokesperson for CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest).

CUAD explicitly and officially issued a statement supporting Hamas and 10/7. As quoted in the Times:

“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, said in its statement revoking the apology.

The group marked the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by distributing a newspaper with a headline that used Hamas’s name for it: “One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,” it read, over a picture of Hamas fighters breaching the security fence to Israel. And the group posted an essay calling the attack a “moral, military and political victory” and quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the assassinated former political leader of Hamas.

“The Palestinian resistance is moving their struggle to a new phase of escalation and it is our duty to meet them there,” the group wrote on Oct. 7 on Telegram. “It is our duty to fight for our freedom!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/c...ian-group-hamas.html

Exactly. This guy wasn’t just walking around with a cardboard sign reading “Cease Fire.”

So, if a South African living in the US with a green card during the 80s supported Nelson Mandela and the ANC, should he have been deported back to South Africa? Mandela and the ANC were considered terrorists until 2008.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-government-considered-nelson-mandela-terrorist-until-2008-flna2d11708787

DP. Let's make the hypothetical match the current situation:

How 'bout if our imaginary South African issued a statement supporting murdering white South African civilians en masse and calling for the destruction of western civilization (as CUAD has done)?

Deportable?

Probably not if he's white.

Also, a lot of Irish Americans supported and even funded and provided arms to the IRA, a terrorist organization. They weren't deported either. Why? Cause they are white people.

You are comparing citizen rights to immigrant rights, which is not at all the same for good reason. And you are wrong. Sinn Fein leaders have been denied visas to the US due to their IRA ties, and denied green cards. It is our policy not to harbor violent extremists of any cause, and it’s a good one.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-feins-ohare-denied-visa-for-trip-to-capitol-hill/26208677.html

Green card immigrants for have rights and protection.
Uh oh, Trump goofed and now needs you apologists to smoke-and-mirrors for him

Can you try that again, in English this time? We don't speak transliterated Arabic here.

Green-card-holding permanent-resident immigrants have rights and protection, you ignorant idiot racist.

They are literally called "resident aliens".

And they still have rights and legal protections.

And need to obey our country's laws.

What law did he break? How precisely did he break it?

Oh, c’mon, you don’t actually expect these liars fellating one another over this story to provide actual facts, right?

You’re dealing with pathological liars. They don’t operate on the basis of facts. It’s all propaganda and projection.

Nice try, lol. He didn't have to break any law. Under a provision of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, a law passed in 1952, any immigrants may be deported if the secretary of state deems their presence in the country potentially adverse to American foreign policy. He broke the provisions of his Green Card status. He festered hatred toward a certain group under the guise of activism which is a hate crime. Aligning with terrorist, and all he did met the requirements of deportation. In March he will go before an immigration judge for a deportation hearing.

Newsflash: he hasn’t yet been charged with any crime!

Newsflash, he doesn't have to commit a crime under the guidelines of a Green Card for deportation. Please educate yourself on that.

[Anonymous]

What I don’t understand is how he got his green card as fast as he apparently did. I know a lot of people who have gotten green cards. None of them were anywhere near as fast as Khalil’s timeline. For most it was many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get a non-partisan response to my question and that is, are there conditions to having a green card?

Just looked it up:

If he attained the green card through marriage, it is probationary for two years. I didn't research it deeply, but it appears this rule is to ensure it is not a fraudulent marriage.

I think there has been some discussion that he lied on his student visa application, but I have not seen that.

I guess I need to do a little research but is the green card permanent after those two years? And are there still any conditions on that green card after that time.

I listened to the White House press briefing, but there it’s always the other side and more to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get a non-partisan response to my question and that is, are there conditions to having a green card?

Just looked it up:

If he attained the green card through marriage, it is probationary for two years. I didn't research it deeply, but it appears this rule is to ensure it is not a fraudulent marriage.

I think there has been some discussion that he lied on his student visa application, but I have not seen that.

I guess I need to do a little research but is the green card permanent after those two years? And are there still any conditions on that green card after that time.

I listened to the White House press briefing, but there it’s always the other side and more to consider.

Green card has to be renewed after ten years. I can't find a copy of the form yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is how he got his green card as fast as he apparently did. I know a lot of people who have gotten green cards. None of them were anywhere near as fast as Khalil’s timeline. For most it was many years.

Brits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get a non-partisan response to my question and that is, are there conditions to having a green card?

Just looked it up:

If he attained the green card through marriage, it is probationary for two years. I didn't research it deeply, but it appears this rule is to ensure it is not a fraudulent marriage.

I think there has been some discussion that he lied on his student visa application, but I have not seen that.

I guess I need to do a little research but is the green card permanent after those two years? And are there still any conditions on that green card after that time.

I listened to the White House press briefing, but there it’s always the other side and more to consider.

If he were a citizen it would be different. If one violates the green card rules yes they can be deported because its a privilege to be here.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is how he got his green card as fast as he apparently did. I know a lot of people who have gotten green cards. None of them were anywhere near as fast as Khalil’s timeline. For most it was many years.

Brits

What do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get a non-partisan response to my question and that is, are there conditions to having a green card?

Just looked it up:

If he attained the green card through marriage, it is probationary for two years. I didn't research it deeply, but it appears this rule is to ensure it is not a fraudulent marriage.

I think there has been some discussion that he lied on his student visa application, but I have not seen that.

I guess I need to do a little research but is the green card permanent after those two years? And are there still any conditions on that green card after that time.

I listened to the White House press briefing, but there it’s always the other side and more to consider.

If he were a citizen it would be different. If one violates the green card rules yes they can be deported because its a privilege to be here.

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

Would it ultimately be different?

More hoops to jump through but this administration, if they don't like what you are saying, they can just grab you l9ck you up and then bicker with the courts.

That why they used ICE instead of the FBI.

ICE has some crazy amount of authority. They have the ability to look up U.S. citizens and not follow due process immediately. Given to them after the terrorist attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"And it's so nice that someone like Riley Gaines, who seems to have no marketable skills can find work talking it up on the American conservative media circuit. That's America for you."

Funny you mention Riley Gaines in a thread about immigration. She claims her Irish husband can't get a green card because he refuses to get a Covid shot. I hope he gets deported and takes her with him. He probably won't since she's on Trump's good side. Different rules for MAGA.

https://www.newsweek.com/riley-gaines-husband-covid-vaccine-green-card-1987894" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.newsweek.com/riley-gaines-husband-covid-vaccine-green-card-1987894

Did her Irish boyfriend incite violent student protests supporting a terrorist organization after a history of working for them?

Khalil served as a political affairs officer with UNRWA — a UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees — which was stripped of tens of millions in federal funding after an explosive report that some of its members took part in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel in which 1,200 people were killed.

For those who would like a different take in the NYpost article quoted by PP, this link offers one as well as some of the legal issues
https://cis.org/Arthur/ICE-Arrests-Palestinian-Activist

But PP left off the paragraph previous to what they quoted, for obvious reasons

"Khalil — who did his undergraduate degree in Beirut — told the Columbia Daily Spectator that he has not participated in any of the protests over the past week and a half because he is worried about losing his student visa that allows him to remain in the US.

Khalil was a political affairs officer with UNRWA — the United Nations’ agency that supports Palestinian refugees — from June through November 2023, according to LinkedIn.

UNRWA lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding earlier this year when an Israeli dossier suggested that agency workers were linked to the Oct. 7 terror attack.

Earlier this week, an Independent Review Group announced that a nine-week probe found a lack of serious evidence that the group had legitimate connections with Hamas."

Just because he claimed he had not participated in the protest does not mean it is true. And an organizer can stay in the wings while the mayhem unfolds.
And look at the timing.
Per the linked article, he was "worrying" about the student visa in April 2024. In February 2025 he has a Green card by marriage and a heavily pregnant wife. This means that he was already married or about to get married (shotgun? LOL), so would not be needing a student vise for much longer.
So I would allow that Khalil is not being entirely truthful, in the article and elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"And it's so nice that someone like Riley Gaines, who seems to have no marketable skills can find work talking it up on the American conservative media circuit. That's America for you."

Funny you mention Riley Gaines in a thread about immigration. She claims her Irish husband can't get a green card because he refuses to get a Covid shot. I hope he gets deported and takes her with him. He probably won't since she's on Trump's good side. Different rules for MAGA.

https://www.newsweek.com/riley-gaines-husband-covid-vaccine-green-card-1987894" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.newsweek.com/riley-gaines-husband-covid-vaccine-green-card-1987894

Did her Irish boyfriend incite violent student protests supporting a terrorist organization after a history of working for them?

Khalil served as a political affairs officer with UNRWA — a UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees — which was stripped of tens of millions in federal funding after an explosive report that some of its members took part in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel in which 1,200 people were killed.

For those who would like a different take in the NYpost article quoted by PP, this link offers one as well as some of the legal issues
https://cis.org/Arthur/ICE-Arrests-Palestinian-Activist

But PP left off the paragraph previous to what they quoted, for obvious reasons

"Khalil — who did his undergraduate degree in Beirut — told the Columbia Daily Spectator that he has not participated in any of the protests over the past week and a half because he is worried about losing his student visa that allows him to remain in the US.

Khalil was a political affairs officer with UNRWA — the United Nations’ agency that supports Palestinian refugees — from June through November 2023, according to LinkedIn.

UNRWA lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding earlier this year when an Israeli dossier suggested that agency workers were linked to the Oct. 7 terror attack.

Earlier this week, an Independent Review Group announced that a nine-week probe found a lack of serious evidence that the group had legitimate connections with Hamas."

Just because he claimed he had not participated in the protest does not mean it is true. And an organizer can stay in the wings while the mayhem unfolds.
And look at the timing.
Per the linked article, he was "worrying" about the student visa in April 2024. In February 2025 he has a Green card by marriage and a heavily pregnant wife. This means that he was already married or about to get married (shotgun? LOL), so would not be needing a student vise for much longer.
So I would allow that Khalil is not being entirely truthful, in the article and elsewhere.

Going from worrying about a student visa in April 2024 to green card by February 2025 is crazy fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean to "support Hamas?"
Pledging allegience to Hamas would certainly count.
Transferring money to "Hamas Inc." via wire transfer would count.
Saying "I think Hamas' actions are justified" seems like a grey area.

Saying I want a cease fire and think Israel is committing genocide doesn't necessarily equate to "supporting Hamas." Did Hamas even want a cease-fire? Certainly on their terms, but that applies to any belligerent. For all we know he might hate Hamas and prefer the PLO or some other organization.

What evidence is there that the student "supported Hamas?" Merely asking for a ceasefire or asking Columbia to divest, would not seem to qualify as "supporting terrorism."

How 'bout this (which I posted earlier)?

Khalil acted as a negotiator and sometimes spokesperson for CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest).

CUAD explicitly and officially issued a statement supporting Hamas and 10/7. As quoted in the Times:

“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, said in its statement revoking the apology.

The group marked the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by distributing a newspaper with a headline that used Hamas’s name for it: “One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,” it read, over a picture of Hamas fighters breaching the security fence to Israel. And the group posted an essay calling the attack a “moral, military and political victory” and quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the assassinated former political leader of Hamas.

“The Palestinian resistance is moving their struggle to a new phase of escalation and it is our duty to meet them there,” the group wrote on Oct. 7 on Telegram. “It is our duty to fight for our freedom!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/c...ian-group-hamas.html

Exactly. This guy wasn’t just walking around with a cardboard sign reading “Cease Fire.”

So, if a South African living in the US with a green card during the 80s supported Nelson Mandela and the ANC, should he have been deported back to South Africa? Mandela and the ANC were considered terrorists until 2008.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-government-considered-nelson-mandela-terrorist-until-2008-flna2d11708787

DP. Let's make the hypothetical match the current situation:

How 'bout if our imaginary South African issued a statement supporting murdering white South African civilians en masse and calling for the destruction of western civilization (as CUAD has done)?

Deportable?

Probably not if he's white.

Also, a lot of Irish Americans supported and even funded and provided arms to the IRA, a terrorist organization. They weren't deported either. Why? Cause they are white people.

You are comparing citizen rights to immigrant rights, which is not at all the same for good reason. And you are wrong. Sinn Fein leaders have been denied visas to the US due to their IRA ties, and denied green cards. It is our policy not to harbor violent extremists of any cause, and it’s a good one.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-feins-ohare-denied-visa-for-trip-to-capitol-hill/26208677.html

Green card immigrants for have rights and protection.
Uh oh, Trump goofed and now needs you apologists to smoke-and-mirrors for him

Can you try that again, in English this time? We don't speak transliterated Arabic here.

Green-card-holding permanent-resident immigrants have rights and protection, you ignorant idiot racist.

They are literally called "resident aliens".

And they still have rights and legal protections.

And need to obey our country's laws.

What law did he break? How precisely did he break it?

Oh, c’mon, you don’t actually expect these liars fellating one another over this story to provide actual facts, right?

You’re dealing with pathological liars. They don’t operate on the basis of facts. It’s all propaganda and projection.

Nice try, lol. He didn't have to break any law. Under a provision of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, a law passed in 1952, any immigrants may be deported if the secretary of state deems their presence in the country potentially adverse to American foreign policy. He broke the provisions of his Green Card status. He festered hatred toward a certain group under the guise of activism which is a hate crime. Aligning with terrorist, and all he did met the requirements of deportation. In March he will go before an immigration judge for a deportation hearing.

Newsflash: he hasn’t yet been charged with any crime!

Newsflash, he doesn't have to commit a crime under the guidelines of a Green Card for deportation. Please educate yourself on that.

+1 He was probably counting on Harris' election to keep him safe.

[Anonymous]

I think the picking up of Mahmoud Khalil should concern anyone concerned with freedom of speech. You may disagree with what he stands for and that's fine.

But what happens if some left-wing nut is elected president? They might think sympathizing with "genocide" in Israel is grounds for deportation.

Or there's a war? Civil liberties tend to go by the wayside during a war (suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln, red scare after Wordl War 1, internment of Japanese CITIZENS during World War 2). If the administration is pulling these kinds of stunts over a few student protests, what happens when there is a real security threat? Don't be so sure the administration wouldn't apply similar tactics to citizens.

We had somewhat similar debates after 9/11 when Bush wanted the authority to designate someone an "enemy combatant" and to be able to wihisk them away to a black hole on Guantonomo. At least has the excuse of the WTC and Pentagon having been attacked and being fearful of a "suitcase nuclear weapon."

We don't need the first amendment to protect someone singing praises for homemade apple pie or who wants to say "hi Mom" when they're on tv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the picking up of Mahmoud Khalil should concern anyone concerned with freedom of speech. You may disagree with what he stands for and that's fine.

But what happens if some left-wing nut is elected president? They might think sympathizing with "genocide" in Israel is grounds for deportation.

Or there's a war? Civil liberties tend to go by the wayside during a war (suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln, red scare after Wordl War 1, internment of Japanese CITIZENS during World War 2). If the administration is pulling these kinds of stunts over a few student protests, what happens when there is a real security threat? Don't be so sure the administration wouldn't apply similar tactics to citizens.

We had somewhat similar debates after 9/11 when Bush wanted the authority to designate someone an "enemy combatant" and to be able to wihisk them away to a black hole on Guantonomo. At least has the excuse of the WTC and Pentagon having been attacked and being fearful of a "suitcase nuclear weapon."

We don't need the first amendment to protect someone singing praises for homemade apple pie or who wants to say "hi Mom" when they're on tv.

I think freedom of speech has been twisted and stretched way beyond actual freedom of speech. Taking over buildings, blocking roadways, interrupting classes for other students are unacceptable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the picking up of Mahmoud Khalil should concern anyone concerned with freedom of speech. You may disagree with what he stands for and that's fine.

But what happens if some left-wing nut is elected president? They might think sympathizing with "genocide" in Israel is grounds for deportation.

Or there's a war? Civil liberties tend to go by the wayside during a war (suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln, red scare after Wordl War 1, internment of Japanese CITIZENS during World War 2). If the administration is pulling these kinds of stunts over a few student protests, what happens when there is a real security threat? Don't be so sure the administration wouldn't apply similar tactics to citizens.

We had somewhat similar debates after 9/11 when Bush wanted the authority to designate someone an "enemy combatant" and to be able to wihisk them away to a black hole on Guantonomo. At least has the excuse of the WTC and Pentagon having been attacked and being fearful of a "suitcase nuclear weapon."

We don't need the first amendment to protect someone singing praises for homemade apple pie or who wants to say "hi Mom" when they're on tv.

Nobody can credibly believe the left-wing has any desire to protect free speech after watching the past five years. That’s the issue here. This is too little too late.