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.

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.

Where's your link?

You don't mind if I don't take your word for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He violated the terms of his green card. Support for terrorist organizations is a deal breaker for those who seek the *privilege* of US citizenship.

Democrats loved to say free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

FAFO.

[Anonymous]

Oh dang I meant they met in 2017 and married in NYC in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ah yes. Any Democrat who points out that Democrats did not, in fact, do well last election because of their own faults must be a secret Trump voter. There is no other way to explain their departure from the Democratic cult.

🙄

[Anonymous]

56 pages and yet it should be evident that if the U.S. doesn't want this guy here, he's not going to stay here and will be deported.

What's puzzling, and still unaddressed, is why he came here to complain about Israel. You'd think he'd be happier in Syria, or Gaza, or the West Bank, or as part of the Israeli political opposition. To come to the U.S. to complain about a U.S. ally, on behalf of people who don't live in the U.S., is inexplicable. No sane person would think that leading protests in the way he did, for the cause he represents, would actually result in a change in U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, well, I'm sure he'll be happier in a more receptive environment like Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is up with his wife?

She says that she was born and raised in the Midwest, and that they met in 2016 in Syria (sounds like she was on a mission trip or something). They dated long distance for 7 (!) years and then married in 2017.

She’s a dentist but there’s no internet footprint of her ever practicing. And there’s no internet footprint of her, at all. She’s VERY homely. I’m getting vibes that maybe she converted and took a Muslim name but was very Americanized before that.

Seven years cross continent long distance relationship with someone that homely, from America?!? While he was living in the Middle East? His family must’ve been like, wtf dude.

He could’ve found a much prettier wife in Syria. I wonder if he stuck with her for the green card.

bingo, green card fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is up with his wife?

She says that she was born and raised in the Midwest, and that they met in 2016 in Syria (sounds like she was on a mission trip or something). They dated long distance for 7 (!) years and then married in 2017.

She’s a dentist but there’s no internet footprint of her ever practicing. And there’s no internet footprint of her, at all. She’s VERY homely. I’m getting vibes that maybe she converted and took a Muslim name but was very Americanized before that.

Seven years cross continent long distance relationship with someone that homely, from America?!? While he was living in the Middle East? His family must’ve been like, wtf dude.

He could’ve found a much prettier wife in Syria. I wonder if he stuck with her for the green card.

bingo, green card fraud

I would totally watch a Mahmoud Khalil version of 90 day fiancé. It would be very entertaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is up with his wife?

She says that she was born and raised in the Midwest, and that they met in 2016 in Syria (sounds like she was on a mission trip or something). They dated long distance for 7 (!) years and then married in 2017.

She’s a dentist but there’s no internet footprint of her ever practicing. And there’s no internet footprint of her, at all. She’s VERY homely. I’m getting vibes that maybe she converted and took a Muslim name but was very Americanized before that.

Seven years cross continent long distance relationship with someone that homely, from America?!? While he was living in the Middle East? His family must’ve been like, wtf dude.

He could’ve found a much prettier wife in Syria. I wonder if he stuck with her for the green card.

bingo, green card fraud

I would totally watch a Mahmoud Khalil version of 90 day fiancé. It would be very entertaining.

Yes just like The Diary of a Young Girl! That was hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see you aren’t addressing the use of state power to censor social media under Biden, because of course you aren’t; that was a grotesque abuse of state power.

As for Dr. Haim, he was protected by both whistleblower laws and free speech; the DOJ attacks were nothing but state-sponsored harassment.

In both instances—and there are several more —the original point stands, which is that the left is no defender of free speech rights and in fact has leaned hard into use of state power to suppress speech that should be protected on first amendment grounds. That makes their actions here highly suspect. You can’t spend five years being opposed to free speech but then suddenly change your mind. Either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t, but this recent discovery of the first amendment by progressives in particular is extremely suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:56 pages and yet it should be evident that if the U.S. doesn't want this guy here, he's not going to stay here and will be deported.

What's puzzling, and still unaddressed, is why he came here to complain about Israel. You'd think he'd be happier in Syria, or Gaza, or the West Bank, or as part of the Israeli political opposition. To come to the U.S. to complain about a U.S. ally, on behalf of people who don't live in the U.S., is inexplicable. No sane person would think that leading protests in the way he did, for the cause he represents, would actually result in a change in U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, well, I'm sure he'll be happier in a more receptive environment like Gaza.

are you kidding? Do you think a British emigre doesn't complain about the US or an ally of the US, ie support of Sinn Fein and a united Ireland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:56 pages and yet it should be evident that if the U.S. doesn't want this guy here, he's not going to stay here and will be deported.

What's puzzling, and still unaddressed, is why he came here to complain about Israel. You'd think he'd be happier in Syria, or Gaza, or the West Bank, or as part of the Israeli political opposition. To come to the U.S. to complain about a U.S. ally, on behalf of people who don't live in the U.S., is inexplicable. No sane person would think that leading protests in the way he did, for the cause he represents, would actually result in a change in U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, well, I'm sure he'll be happier in a more receptive environment like Gaza.

are you kidding? Do you think a British emigre doesn't complain about the US or an ally of the US, ie support of Sinn Fein and a united Ireland?

False equivalence.

He wasn't just "complaining." He was publicly demonstrating and signing his name to statements supporting a designated terrorist organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:56 pages and yet it should be evident that if the U.S. doesn't want this guy here, he's not going to stay here and will be deported.

What's puzzling, and still unaddressed, is why he came here to complain about Israel. You'd think he'd be happier in Syria, or Gaza, or the West Bank, or as part of the Israeli political opposition. To come to the U.S. to complain about a U.S. ally, on behalf of people who don't live in the U.S., is inexplicable. No sane person would think that leading protests in the way he did, for the cause he represents, would actually result in a change in U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, well, I'm sure he'll be happier in a more receptive environment like Gaza.

Like Russia, our latest bestie

Don't piss off the Don.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:56 pages and yet it should be evident that if the U.S. doesn't want this guy here, he's not going to stay here and will be deported.

What's puzzling, and still unaddressed, is why he came here to complain about Israel. You'd think he'd be happier in Syria, or Gaza, or the West Bank, or as part of the Israeli political opposition. To come to the U.S. to complain about a U.S. ally, on behalf of people who don't live in the U.S., is inexplicable. No sane person would think that leading protests in the way he did, for the cause he represents, would actually result in a change in U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, well, I'm sure he'll be happier in a more receptive environment like Gaza.

are you kidding? Do you think a British emigre doesn't complain about the US or an ally of the US, ie support of Sinn Fein and a united Ireland?

False equivalence.

He wasn't just "complaining." He was publicly demonstrating and signing his name to statements supporting a designated terrorist organization.

That is not illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see you aren’t addressing the use of state power to censor social media under Biden, because of course you aren’t; that was a grotesque abuse of state power.

As for Dr. Haim, he was protected by both whistleblower laws and free speech; the DOJ attacks were nothing but state-sponsored harassment.

In both instances—and there are several more —the original point stands, which is that the left is no defender of free speech rights and in fact has leaned hard into use of state power to suppress speech that should be protected on first amendment grounds. That makes their actions here highly suspect. You can’t spend five years being opposed to free speech but then suddenly change your mind. Either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t, but this recent discovery of the first amendment by progressives in particular is extremely suspect.

Even though these children's PARENTS were the ones making the decisions

So the right isn't for parents' rights anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see you aren’t addressing the use of state power to censor social media under Biden, because of course you aren’t; that was a grotesque abuse of state power.

As for Dr. Haim, he was protected by both whistleblower laws and free speech; the DOJ attacks were nothing but state-sponsored harassment.

In both instances—and there are several more —the original point stands, which is that the left is no defender of free speech rights and in fact has leaned hard into use of state power to suppress speech that should be protected on first amendment grounds. That makes their actions here highly suspect. You can’t spend five years being opposed to free speech but then suddenly change your mind. Either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t, but this recent discovery of the first amendment by progressives in particular is extremely suspect.

Even though these children's PARENTS were the ones making the decisions

So the right isn't for parents' rights anymore

You don’t understand whistleblower or first amendment protections. Parents rights is a separate issue from speech protections.

In any event, it’s clear you have no real refutation of the fact that the left has been operating against the first amendment for years, so their new-found embrace of free speech is not believed as credible by most.