Trump govt is deporting Green Card holder student exercising free speech

[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.

And yet the organization he was involved with was investigated and cleared of wrongdoing.

If he participated in the protests, that is nkt illegal. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean he can't protest. Not everyone who protested was involved in anything that was illegal.

The burden is to prove that he did something illegal, not just that he was involved in protests. And no, I don't count camping out in the middle of campus as illegal. Has that been declared yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You lost all credibility by your first line. You now follow a Liar-in-Chief.

Too little too late? GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What happened in the last 5 years to indicate the left is not concerned with the first amendment? "Cancel culture" (e.g., boycotting someone's bool because you don't like what they say) is not a first amendment issue. Even a private university canceling a lecture (I typically don't agree with such cancellations) is not a first amendment issue.

It is the use of government power that is concerning. Even if the left is inconsistent on the first amendment, the solution is to check the left's actions, not adopt Gestapo like tactics in revenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

[Anonymous]

What did he do that’s illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You lost all credibility by your first line. You now follow a Liar-in-Chief.

Too little too late? GTFO

🙄

I’m a Harris voter, you cultist. Just not one who isn’t blind like you cult members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

And they were American citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You lost all credibility by your first line. You now follow a Liar-in-Chief.

Too little too late? GTFO

🙄

I’m a Harris voter, you cultist. Just not one who isn’t blind like you cult members.

Sure you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What happened in the last 5 years to indicate the left is not concerned with the first amendment? "Cancel culture" (e.g., boycotting someone's bool because you don't like what they say) is not a first amendment issue. Even a private university canceling a lecture (I typically don't agree with such cancellations) is not a first amendment issue.

It is the use of government power that is concerning. Even if the left is inconsistent on the first amendment, the solution is to check the left's actions, not adopt Gestapo like tactics in revenge.

Biden’s strongarming of social media companies is a classic case in point. Also, abuse of whistleblowers, eg use of state power against people like Dr. Haim.

You cannot be entirely blind to leftist use of state power to suppress speech over the past five years. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

And they were American citizens.

Really?

You know all about who was there?

The first amendment is part of the law of the land. The government needs to follow this not just ask for papers and then decide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What happened in the last 5 years to indicate the left is not concerned with the first amendment? "Cancel culture" (e.g., boycotting someone's bool because you don't like what they say) is not a first amendment issue. Even a private university canceling a lecture (I typically don't agree with such cancellations) is not a first amendment issue.

It is the use of government power that is concerning. Even if the left is inconsistent on the first amendment, the solution is to check the left's actions, not adopt Gestapo like tactics in revenge.

Biden’s strongarming of social media companies is a classic case in point. Also, abuse of whistleblowers, eg use of state power against people like Dr. Haim.

You cannot be entirely blind to leftist use of state power to suppress speech over the past five years. Come on.

Those patients were not under his care!

You open up a very slippery slope with your defense of that doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

And,some were arrested. Also, part of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

And,some were arrested. Also, part of history.

Haha

So you've determined to be in the wrong side of history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Students did it in the 60s. That's part of our history.

And,some were arrested. Also, part of history.

Arrested for doing illegal things, not for protected speech.

[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.

c— 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."

that is old, updated analysis proves the link, UNWRA is Hamas influenced and they have brainwashed children towards terrorism, green card deport hamas guy worked for UNWRA during the oct 7 massacre.