Mahmoud Khalil, a guest in our country is being deported not for his "protected speech," but for his terrorist actions. He has harassed and assaulted Jews in a horrible fashion and he's outworn his welcome. Kudos to the Trump administration.
When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail - and as much as I admire and will continue to support FIRE, I think you may be wrong on this one. This is an issue of racist harassment and intimidation, not "Free Speech". If a man sexually harasses/intimidates a woman on campus or on public transportation, is he expressing his "free speech"? Or is he trampling on the freedoms of another person? Mahmoud Khalil racially harassed and intimidated Jewish students on the Columbia campus and violated their rights to an education. Do you truly believe he and others have a right to do that? This issue is far from black and white, and I hope a reasonable compromise can be found between the rights of Jewish Americans to an education and the rights of foreign Green Card holders to harass and intimidate Jewish students.
I definitely lean in favor of Jewish American students. I hope the court does, too.
How in the world do Khalil's actions get interpreted as speech or mere expression? He's clearly an enemy of liberal values and doesn't deserve to be able to abuse them.
IANAL, but the law seems pretty clear in Khalil's case, and on the side of the government, not the green card holder.
A person is deportable if ANY of the following are true:
9 FAM 302.6-2 (U) Terrorist activities - INA 212(a)(3)(B)
9 FAM 302.6-2(A) (U) Grounds
(CT:VISA-2014; 06-20-2024)
(U) INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i) renders ineligible any applicant who:
(1) (U) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(2) (U) you know, or have reason to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity;
(3) (U) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(4) (U) is a representative of:
(a) (U) a terrorist organization; or
(b) (U) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(5) (U) is a member of a designated terrorist organization;
(6) (U) is a member of an undesignated terrorist organization, unless the applicant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(7) (U) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(8) (U) has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, when the training was received, was a terrorist organization; or
(9) (U) is the spouse or child of an applicant who is ineligible, if the activity causing the applicant to be found ineligible occurred within the last 5 years.
Wrong on Columbia U's capitulation to get "its" $400 million back. Once disease has progressed past a certain point, severe and often unpleasant measures must be taken just to save the patient. Things are almost always best caught and dealt with sooner rather than later.
I admit to being surprised by the government's justification in the Khalil case, because they have referred specifically to speech. Khalil is a danger, not so much for what he says as for what he does. It's not violating his human rights to refuse him the opportunity to continue violating others rights and encouraging illegal actions.
Mahmoud Khalil, a guest in our country is being deported not for his "protected speech," but for his terrorist actions. He has harassed and assaulted Jews in a horrible fashion and he's outworn his welcome. Kudos to the Trump administration.
Can you cite one solid and specific example of Khalil himself ‘harassing and assaulting Jews?’
When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail - and as much as I admire and will continue to support FIRE, I think you may be wrong on this one. This is an issue of racist harassment and intimidation, not "Free Speech". If a man sexually harasses/intimidates a woman on campus or on public transportation, is he expressing his "free speech"? Or is he trampling on the freedoms of another person? Mahmoud Khalil racially harassed and intimidated Jewish students on the Columbia campus and violated their rights to an education. Do you truly believe he and others have a right to do that? This issue is far from black and white, and I hope a reasonable compromise can be found between the rights of Jewish Americans to an education and the rights of foreign Green Card holders to harass and intimidate Jewish students.
I definitely lean in favor of Jewish American students. I hope the court does, too.
Can you cite one solid and specific example of Khalil himself engaging in ‘racist harassment and intimidation of Jewish students?’
Defending Khalil?!? You’ve lost me. Constitutional free speech does not give foreigners carte blanche to disrupt education and harass Jews.
Can you cite one solid and specific example of Khalil himself ‘harassing Jews?’
How in the world do Khalil's actions get interpreted as speech or mere expression? He's clearly an enemy of liberal values and doesn't deserve to be able to abuse them.
IANAL, but the law seems pretty clear in Khalil's case, and on the side of the government, not the green card holder.
A person is deportable if ANY of the following are true:
9 FAM 302.6-2 (U) Terrorist activities - INA 212(a)(3)(B)
9 FAM 302.6-2(A) (U) Grounds
(CT:VISA-2014; 06-20-2024)
(U) INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i) renders ineligible any applicant who:
(1) (U) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(2) (U) you know, or have reason to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity;
(3) (U) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(4) (U) is a representative of:
(a) (U) a terrorist organization; or
(b) (U) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(5) (U) is a member of a designated terrorist organization;
(6) (U) is a member of an undesignated terrorist organization, unless the applicant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(7) (U) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(8) (U) has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, when the training was received, was a terrorist organization; or
(9) (U) is the spouse or child of an applicant who is ineligible, if the activity causing the applicant to be found ineligible occurred within the last 5 years.
Source: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030206.html
Khalil seems to qualify for deportation under several of these.
Wrong on Columbia U's capitulation to get "its" $400 million back. Once disease has progressed past a certain point, severe and often unpleasant measures must be taken just to save the patient. Things are almost always best caught and dealt with sooner rather than later.
Right on Khalil.
I admit to being surprised by the government's justification in the Khalil case, because they have referred specifically to speech. Khalil is a danger, not so much for what he says as for what he does. It's not violating his human rights to refuse him the opportunity to continue violating others rights and encouraging illegal actions.