All because he stood up for the Palestinians during a genocide. The world isn’t fair.
neuronexmachina · 18m ago
It's crazy that he's a permanent resident and hasn't even been accused of a crime.
tester5555 · 12m ago
Let's be honest here was that the real reason or did he incite pro-Hamas protesters to illegally occupy and vandalize a Columbia campus building and to threaten Jewish students with violence or bar them from entering Columbia classrooms?
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not allow persons to be subject to criminal penalty for endorsing or espousing terrorist activity, has an important caveat: Brandenburg does not protect speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action.
Did he do this? Is there a non-zero chance he he a member of a terrorist organization or encouraged domestic terrorism?
If there is even a seed of doubt in your mind to those questions or you feel upset by this accusation alone its worth considering if you are saying something untrue and your emotions are getting in the way of your rationality.
WastedCucumber · 1h ago
This time, ordered by a judge.
jkaplowitz · 1h ago
This time and last time both ordered by an immigration judge, who is a non-tenured employee of the executive branch able to be fired at will by the President and who is not allowed to consider constitutional defenses. Very different from the real judges to whom the constitutional questions in Khalil’s case are reserved.
Even statutorily rather than constitutionally, there are defenses which if proved would prevent these misrepresentations from making him deportable, and he does have appeal rights both within the executive branch immigration court system and beyond.
This case is definitely not over.
pimlottc · 16m ago
“Immigration judges” that are not part of the judicial branch are one of the weirder quirks of US government. They probably shouldn’t have been allowed to use the title “judge” at all, but here we are.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not allow persons to be subject to criminal penalty for endorsing or espousing terrorist activity, has an important caveat: Brandenburg does not protect speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action.
Did he do this? Is there a non-zero chance he he a member of a terrorist organization or encouraged domestic terrorism?
If there is even a seed of doubt in your mind to those questions or you feel upset by this accusation alone its worth considering if you are saying something untrue and your emotions are getting in the way of your rationality.
Even statutorily rather than constitutionally, there are defenses which if proved would prevent these misrepresentations from making him deportable, and he does have appeal rights both within the executive branch immigration court system and beyond.
This case is definitely not over.