Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Trump govt is deporting Green Card holder student exercising free speech"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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."[/quote] 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[/quote] I posted what you responded to. To my non-lawyer trained mind this would seem a grey area at best. He's not providing material support (e.g., money, supplies, harboring), only saying he agrees with what Hamas is doing. I could see not letting an immigrant in who said this at the point of entry interview. But I would think the bar has to be somewhat higher for permanent residents in terms of penalizing them for speech. If the first amendment applies equally to citizens and noncitizens alike, seems like deporting him for speech is a clear first amendment violation. I thought the default was that laws (except for voting, jury duty, electoral office, etc.) apply to citizens and noncitizens alike. If we have carve outs for noncitizens, what are they? Can we arrest them at will? Search them without a warrant? [/quote] PP here. It is a massive grey area. But a few things need clarification: 1. You do not need to provide material support to be deportable. The statute provides for deportation of anyone who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity". (Someone posted the full text above if you want to read). 2. The statute specifically says that such endorsement/espousal is both grounds to deny admission AND for deportation. 3. You *might* be right about the first amendment--the law may be found unconstitutional. But it's not at all clear-cut. I spent an hour yesterday reading a Harvard Law Review article which essentially concluded that we don't know whether the Court will find that the first amendment rights of aliens are identical to those of citizens. I think this is a very close call from a legal perspective and will very likely be decided by the Supreme Court. It's also interesting from a factual perspective--does serving as the (possibly informal) spokesperson of a "coalition" make the individual responsible for the group's statements?[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics