All because he stood up for the Palestinians during a genocide. The world isn’t fair.
rayiner · 1m ago
[delayed]
neuronexmachina · 47m ago
It's crazy that he's a permanent resident and hasn't even been accused of a crime.
tester5555 · 40m 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.
singleshot_ · 26m ago
> even a seed of doubt
That’s a pretty interesting burden of proof for a nineteen minute old account.
No comments yet
jkaplowitz · 22m ago
A red herring: Even the government hasn’t accused him of illegal speech, nor have they charged him with any criminal or (non-immigration) civil violation at all. If his speech was of that constitutionally unprotected kind, they very likely would have done so.
The government has made two accusations against Khalil, both related to immigration law only.
The one which motivated today’s ruling is the less legally interesting one, about misrepresentation in his permanent residence application. There are a bunch of questions over who intended what, what was or wasn’t material or willful, what would or wouldn’t have affected the decision to grant permanent residence, and who manages to meet what required burden of proof. It’s probably selective prosecution of that immigration law claim because of his protected speech, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has already upheld that in the immigration law context even though it’s usually unconstitutional otherwise.
The immigration law claim they started with against him is a very vague and broad one which basically lets the Secretary of State freely decide in his discretion that a noncitizen’s speech is sufficiently bad for foreign policy, even if it’s otherwise legal, and then render the person deportable. President Trump’s late sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a former US federal judge, previously ruled this provision unconstitutional, and her ruling was only overturned on procedural grounds that have nothing to do with the merits.
We will see what happens in Khalil’s case. He might get deported if he can’t overcome the misrepresentation claims, or he might get to stay if the scary broad foreign policy ground of deportability is invalidated. It will probably be one of those outcomes.
Upholding the foreign policy ground of deportability would give a frightening amount of unreviewable control to one political appointee. Permanent residents deserve more certainty than that about how to keep their status secure.
But none of that has to do with the kind of illegal speech that normally falls outside First Amendment protections in criminal court, since even the government hasn’t claimed that Khalil did that.
WastedCucumber · 2h 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 · 45m 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.
That’s a pretty interesting burden of proof for a nineteen minute old account.
No comments yet
The government has made two accusations against Khalil, both related to immigration law only.
The one which motivated today’s ruling is the less legally interesting one, about misrepresentation in his permanent residence application. There are a bunch of questions over who intended what, what was or wasn’t material or willful, what would or wouldn’t have affected the decision to grant permanent residence, and who manages to meet what required burden of proof. It’s probably selective prosecution of that immigration law claim because of his protected speech, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has already upheld that in the immigration law context even though it’s usually unconstitutional otherwise.
The immigration law claim they started with against him is a very vague and broad one which basically lets the Secretary of State freely decide in his discretion that a noncitizen’s speech is sufficiently bad for foreign policy, even if it’s otherwise legal, and then render the person deportable. President Trump’s late sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a former US federal judge, previously ruled this provision unconstitutional, and her ruling was only overturned on procedural grounds that have nothing to do with the merits.
We will see what happens in Khalil’s case. He might get deported if he can’t overcome the misrepresentation claims, or he might get to stay if the scary broad foreign policy ground of deportability is invalidated. It will probably be one of those outcomes.
Upholding the foreign policy ground of deportability would give a frightening amount of unreviewable control to one political appointee. Permanent residents deserve more certainty than that about how to keep their status secure.
But none of that has to do with the kind of illegal speech that normally falls outside First Amendment protections in criminal court, since even the government hasn’t claimed that Khalil did that.
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.