• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Border czar: "Free speech has limitations"

:cautious:

Yes, free speech has limits.

You can't defame people. Khalil didn't defame anyone. If he had, the federal government has no role in that, it's up to the allegedly defamed individual.

You can't issue immediate threats of harm. Khalil didn't do that either.

You can't make statements that immediately incite a riot. Khalil didn't do that either. As a reminder, it's legal to encourage people to protest, even if that protest involves something like occupying a student center.

By the way, Khalil has not been accused of any crimes. They can't even articulate what he allegedly did that would justify revoking his legal permanent residency, other than... handing out leaflets. :rolleyes: They just want to kick him out for daring to open his mouth -- and during a protest that didn't even occur during the current administration's term. :rolleyes:

It is utterly shameful and hypocritical that the same administration which pardoned the J6 defendants, who violently tried to overthrow the government, is picking on a protestor who was well within his rights.

I.e. Homan is full of shit. This is just more authoritarian garbage from today's Republicans.
 
Only if it’s something you don’t want to hear. If this individual has committed a crime, he needs to be charged. I thought that I saw a report that he is already locked up in Louisiana somewhere, WTF?

www.shreveporttimes.com

Student protester arrested by ICE being held in Louisiana facility

Mahmoud Khalil's attorneys are challenging his arrest, which raises questions about First Amendment protections for non-citizen protesters.
www.shreveporttimes.com

On a tangent; I have said for a long time, that the 1A was going to be problematic in this new internet age. Not that new, but the bullshit online has gotten worse in the last ten years, I wonder if there is a correlation there?


Does the US Constitution say that it applies to citizens only?
 
Rexedgar said:
Only if it’s something you don’t want to hear. If this individual has committed a crime, he needs to be charged. I thought that I saw a report that he is already locked up in Louisiana somewhere, WTF?

www.shreveporttimes.com

Student protester arrested by ICE being held in Louisiana facility

Mahmoud Khalil's attorneys are challenging his arrest, which raises questions about First Amendment protections for non-citizen protesters.
www.shreveporttimes.com

On a tangent; I have said for a long time, that the 1A was going to be problematic in this new internet age. Not that new, but the bullshit online has gotten worse in the last ten years, I wonder if there is a correlation there?


Does the US Constitution say that it applies to citizens only?
Click to expand...

I think its mostly a problem in the Trump Age, where MAGA wants disinformation protected, protest criminalized and where news organizations are punished for not saying "Gulf of Mexico."
 
Rexedgar said:
Only if it’s something you don’t want to hear. If this individual has committed a crime, he needs to be charged. I thought that I saw a report that he is already locked up in Louisiana somewhere, WTF?
Click to expand...
He hasn't been charged with any crimes.

They shipped him to Louisiana, and denied him access to his lawyers, because they're a bunch of fascist f***s who thought they could deprive him of his rights if they moved fast enough.

They are now claiming he's in a detention center in NJ, but no one has confirmed that.

Rexedgar said:
Does the US Constitution say that it applies to citizens only?
Click to expand...
He's a legal permanent resident. He has the same 1st Amendment rights as any citizen.
 
Visbek said:
He hasn't been charged with any crimes.

They shipped him to Louisiana, and denied him access to his lawyers, because they're a bunch of fascist f***s who thought they could deprive him of his rights if they moved fast enough.

They are now claiming he's in a detention center in NJ, but no one has confirmed that.


He's a legal permanent resident. He has the same 1st Amendment rights as any citizen.
Click to expand...
Not what I meant, does the Constitution say “citizens?” SoS reportedly has the authority to remove “green card” status on a whim. I’m with you, I don’t know how you whisk someone away without any charges.
 
j brown's body said:
I think its mostly a problem in the Trump Age, where MAGA wants disinformation protected, protest criminalized and where news organizations are punished for not saying "Gulf of Mexico."
Click to expand...
The map on the easel with the “Gulf of America” highlighted seems to be a fixture in the Oval Office recently.
 
Visbek said:
He's a legal permanent resident. He has the same 1st Amendment rights as any citizen.
Click to expand...
Except he doesn’t. His green card can be revoked and he can be deported under anti-terrorism statutes.
 
j brown's body said:



Disagree or agree? And if so, what limitations should there be?
Click to expand...


Agree.

Cox said that if the State Department has “reasonable ground to believe that a noncitizen’s presence or activities in the country would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, then that person is deportable, and so even a green card holder can be deportable on those grounds.”
Click to expand...

www.nbcnews.com

Mahmoud Khalil's arrest raises legal questions around deporting legal permanent residents

“Immigration law does allow the federal government to deport noncitizens, even people who are green-card holders,” in certain circumstances, an expert said.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

C. Foreign Policy​

Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States…”

There are two limited exceptions to section 237(a)(4)(C). First, we should note that the parallel inadmissibility provision to section 237(a)(4)(C) is found in section 212(a)(3)(C). Section 237(a)(4)(C)(ii) incorporates two exceptions to section 212(a)(3)(C) into the deportability provision.
Click to expand...

myattorneyusa.com

Section 237 Deportability Statutes: Security and related grounds - MyAttorney USA

This article examines deportability provisions for security and related grounds, including removal for terrorist activities, participation in genocide, and extrajudicial killing.
myattorneyusa.com
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
SoS reportedly has the authority to remove “green card” status on a whim.
Click to expand...
The Secretary of State is not empowered to arbitrarily revoke permanent residency.

It's not easy to revoke permanent residence. You'd have to do one of the following:
• Commit a serious crime
• Materially lie on your application for residency
• Stayed abroad too long
• Engage in actions with "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences"

And no, handing out flyers at a student protest is none of the above.

The administration is, yet again, acting in a lawless manner.
 
Visbek said:
The Secretary of State is not empowered to arbitrarily revoke permanent residency.

It's not easy to revoke permanent residence. You'd have to do one of the following:
• Commit a serious crime
• Materially lie on your application for residency
• Stayed abroad too long
• Engage in actions with "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences"

And no, handing out flyers at a student protest is none of the above.

The administration is, yet again, acting in a lawless manner.
Click to expand...
Actually, handing out literature in support of a terrorist organization is grounds for revocation of his green card and deportation.
 
Napoleon said:
Except he doesn’t. His green card can be revoked and he can be deported under anti-terrorism statutes.
Click to expand...
But he had that right when he said the words trump et al don't like.
 
www.nytimes.com

Columbia Activist Has Not Been Allowed to Speak Privately With Lawyers

Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who the Trump administration has claimed is a national security threat, is in immigration detention in Louisiana.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by the Trump administration last weekend, have not been able to hold a private conversation with their client since his arrest.

That revelation came from a hearing in Manhattan federal court Wednesday, as lawyers for Mr. Khalil and the government appeared in front of a judge, Jesse Furman, to discuss Mr. Khalil’s detention, which has raised significant concerns about free speech protections amid President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Mr. Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the Columbia University campus, was arrested by federal immigration agents in New York on Saturday and is being held at a facility in Louisiana. He has not been charged with any crime.

But the Trump administration has accused him of siding with terrorists, and justified his detention by citing an obscure statute that grants the secretary of state the power to declare that someone whose presence in the United States is “adversarial” to the country’s foreign policy and national security interests is subject to deportation.

Early Sunday morning, lawyers for Mr. Khalil filed a petition questioning the circumstances of his detention. They have asked Judge Furman to compel the government to return him to New York....

```````````````````````````````

Imprisoned far away, not charged with a crime....because he said something the current government doesn't like.
 
Visbek said:
:cautious:

Yes, free speech has limits.

You can't defame people. Khalil didn't defame anyone. If he had, the federal government has no role in that, it's up to the allegedly defamed individual.

You can't issue immediate threats of harm. Khalil didn't do that either.

You can't make statements that immediately incite a riot. Khalil didn't do that either. As a reminder, it's legal to encourage people to protest, even if that protest involves something like occupying a student center.

By the way, Khalil has not been accused of any crimes. They can't even articulate what he allegedly did that would justify revoking his legal permanent residency, other than... handing out leaflets. :rolleyes: They just want to kick him out for daring to open his mouth -- and during a protest that didn't even occur during the current administration's term. :rolleyes:

It is utterly shameful and hypocritical that the same administration which pardoned the J6 defendants, who violently tried to overthrow the government, is picking on a protestor who was well within his rights.

I.e. Homan is full of shit. This is just more authoritarian garbage from today's Republicans.
Click to expand...
This entire thing is a crock. The claim they're trying to make is pretty abstract since they're claiming he supports groups that are in conflict with US foreign policy, which is a pretty big reach. I completely agree with the absolute tone deafness from the administration given their pardon of people who not only used the threat of violence to interfere with a government proceeding, but assaulted police officers as well.
 
j brown's body said:



Disagree or agree? And if so, what limitations should there be?
Click to expand...

There are limitations on all rights...they tend to be about being responsible for our rights and are confirmed by the Supreme Court (yes, even the 2nd Amendment, look them up).

So Homan is correct in saying that...however...Khalil has not broken any laws nor violated any limitations concerning the First Amendment.

Side note: Khalil was not in violation of his student visa as he has a legal green card, so the student visa BS is just that...BS.
 
j brown's body said:



Disagree or agree? And if so, what limitations should there be?
Click to expand...

The current limitations applied to aliens are codified in 8 USC 1227 and 8 USC 1182. They have yet to be found unconstitutional.

I could probably be pretty easily convinced that, as applied to LPRs at least, that some applications of this law are unconstitutional.
 
j brown's body said:



Disagree or agree? And if so, what limitations should there be?
Click to expand...

I'm unclear what you are asking. Are you asking if free speech has limitations or if it should have limitations? Those are 2 different conversations.
 
From an editorial in today's WSJ:
A green card comes with legal obligations, including the disavowal of terrorism. Under 8 USC 1182, an alien is “inadmissable” if he or she “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity” or is “a representative of . . . a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.”

Mr. Khalil seems to have violated that obligation. He belongs to Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) and was a lead negotiator during last spring’s anti-Israel encampment on the campus. Those protests glorified Hamas. CUAD was also a key player in the school’s encampment, which was a “Zionist-free zone,” a designation that excluded Jews from a large part of campus.

In October 2024, CUAD formalized its support for Hamas and again celebrated the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. In a statement revoking an apology the group had made for the remark of member Khymani James that “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” the group said that apology didn’t represent “CUAD’s values or political lines.” The group added, “We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance.”
Click to expand...
Source: Paywall


A Green Card is not a right. It's a privilege. The editorial goes on to ask the very important question whether Khalil is getting, or will get, due process. That he deserves.
 
Visbek said:
The Secretary of State is not empowered to arbitrarily revoke permanent residency.

It's not easy to revoke permanent residence. You'd have to do one of the following:
• Commit a serious crime
• Materially lie on your application for residency
• Stayed abroad too long
• Engage in actions with "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences"

And no, handing out flyers at a student protest is none of the above.

The administration is, yet again, acting in a lawless manner.
Click to expand...
How about if the individual endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom