I will be interested to see how this Columbia university student terrorist case develops. The lefties are portraying it as a free speech case but it is not. The guy absolutely has a right to free speech but that includes his right to say stupid sh#t that shows his affinity for the foes of America and antisemites and disqualifies him for citizenship- which he has done. So put your little hamas rag on your head and walk into court and spew your sh#t out there for all I care. That's fine. I support your free speech there 100%. I will also pack you a little lunch when/if your sorry ass is shipped out because I am a giver. If your family wants to be with you, then they are free to go with you. I will pack a lunch for them too. Bye-bye.
The real question is why the Biden administration did not take action to deport this terrorist organization supporter prior 2025. Mahmoud Khalil is a leader of a pro-terrorist movement that is funded by Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) as outlined clearly in the civil lawsuit from Jewish students. He violates the civil rights of others by terrorizing Jewish students on campus while leading supporters around chanting "Kill the Jews" and "From the River to the Sea" (all of it captured on video). The organization he leads has used violence, destroyed property and regularly required the police to intervene & arrest the pro-Hamas protestors. Green card holders are not immune from deportation. They are not U.S. citizens. Numerous green card holders have been deported in the past for crimes or for supporting terrorist groups. Only idiots will try to claim that Mahmoud Khalil is immune from deportation because he holds a green card and that this is a free speech case. The events at Columbia and other universities have been outlined in the other thread in great detail - https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ons-for-their-antisemitic-hate.377123/page-42
They argue that he has not committed any crimes. That may or may not be true. But there is no requirement that he be convicted or accused of any crime to be ineligible for citizenship. But in the absence of a crime there would need to be a finding by the government that he is a security risk or an undesirable. Okay fine then. And the Secretary of State has made such a finding and has facts and reasoning on the record for presentation to the courts if there is an allegation that he acted arbitrarily. And if he wants to argue otherwise, fine. No problem with a court hearing. This case reminds me a bit of the case with Isis Mamma a few years back. She claimed she had a right to come back to this country with her child. And, despite extensive argument here from some forum members against my statements that she did not, I argument that she did not, I had no issue with argument at court on it. Go for it. Meanwhile, she did not come back but the point is I absolutely have no problem with defendant/petitioner making argument. The other thing that complicates things a bit for the Hamas Humper is that Syria has had a regime change- allegedly for the better- so there are no humanitarian reasons why he cannot be returned there if required. His life is not at risk there for being pro-Hamas. We can hold him at Gitmo if he prefers. He can even wear his little Hamas rag on his head in his cell there if he wants. I am flexible.
How so? I am 100% in support of free speech. I cannot guarantee you protection from the consequences of it though. If you go out and threaten others then the right to free speech prevents me from silencing you in advance. But if you do stupid or criminal. Then you will be treated as such or should be. If I want to protest in front of Columbia University saying that the president and everyone there sucks dead donkey dicks then that may be my right- particularly if I am not actually on their property. But they may not accept my application to graduate school. That does not mean they denied me free speech. I don't have a right to be a student there and the Hamas Humper does not have a right to be a citizen.
My understanding is that he is a Palestinian activist. It was Trump who claimed he is a Hamas supporter. There is a meaningful difference there. Perhaps you can direct me to where he is specifically shown to be a Hamas supporter? In which case, I will understand your point of view. Otherwise, you're FOS. Here, read this: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...mbia-antisemitism-free-speech-first-amendment
I said in my post to GWB that the government must make its case and that the defendant was entitled to a court hearing. The government- Rubio in particular since he is the deciding official- says they have had him under surveillance beyond over a period of time. They need to deliver in court and make their case. That is always the underlying assumption and I also require the government to deliver. I do not assume though that I know everything the government has on him and neither should you. My point is and remains 1)he has no right to citizenship. 2)proof of criminal behavior is not required. Beyond that the elements of the case must be proven. In reality, this is America. He will get a stay in deportation. Given a court hearing that will be years down the road, etc. etc. So that works in his favor. Or not. He may not want to spend more years here if ultimately he is going to be deported/denied citizenship. The government might have the right to hold him in detention too during the appeal period. And all sorts of scenarios in between. The government may have to release him pending judgement. But the government may also send him a notice revoking his green card too in which case the burden is shifted. Now he has to work his arse off in that long court process to get it reinstated. The government has made statements that are not included in the court filings. That is not unusual. A court filing just asserts a basis for the filing without detail evidence. We will know more after his court appearance/s. If he feels he is being wrongfully detained, then he can file a writ of habeas corpus in Louisiana and get a hearing on that to required the government to show cause. If he can defend himself on that, then so be it. If not, well then, not.
Why didn't the Biden administration stop Hamas-funded instigators from intimidating and terrorizing Jewish students on college campuses? After all, protecting the civil rights of students to be educated without being targeted and abused is a fundamental legal requirement of federal oversight. Is the Biden administration simply allowed to ignore the law and let terrorist activity thrive in the U.S.? Because according to his administration the targeting of Jews seems to be acceptable. Well, it's not.