I wish the FIRE discussion had addressed Rubio's argument that
a) under U.S, code no alien who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" is admissible to the U.S. and
b) if Khalid asserted that he did not so support and espouse Hamas at the time of entry then he materially lied to the U.S. government to get his visa and green card and so
c) is deportable on that ground.
I remain very uncomfortable with such a policy on free-speech grounds even if the SC were to deem it constitutional. But I would like a serious answer to Rubio's argument.
"Yes, the state can and will take into consideration things like a potential immigrant’s viewpoint for granting a green card, visa, or citizenship in the first place. But once they’re here, we believe the clearest and most pragmatic approach is for the First Amendment to apply consistently."
This is nothing more than hypocritical. The clearest and most consistent approach is that the same standard be used for admission and deportation. That's literally how the immigration law is already written. A valid reason to keep them out is also a valid reason to kick them out. Full stop. The presence of any alien in our country is a privilege, not a Right, that may be revoked at any time.
CUAD is a group that has not merely 'protested', right here and now they are according to their own words "fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” they illegally occupied buildings, disrupted classes and obstructed free movement, assaulted students and security officers, engaged in stalking, death threats, bomb threats and called for arson of school buildings and worse. They don't merely glorify mob violence and genocide, THEY ASPIRE TO IT AND RECRUIT FOR IT. I realize that FIRE is rightfully very careful about the legal definitions of harassment, true threat, and the like, but they've clearly met that standard time and again. Bluntly, these 'activists' aren't just verbally supporting terrorists, they themselves ARE terrorists (and I do NOT use that term lightly at all, but rather according to the legal definition found in 8 USC 1182). They are a homegrown Taliban. Those who are aliens should be deported and those who aren't should be arrested for their crimes. Speaking an unpopular opinion doesn't make you immune to the neutral application of the Law.
This is the point that I don't see advocates for Khalil address. If you wouldn't be let in based on your statement and beliefs, why would you be protected from deportation for beliefs that would have excluded you from entry in the first place? He is not a citizen. He is a guest.
People who don't live under US jurisdiction don't have a right to access US jurisdiction. People who live in the US, regardless of their statuts, are under US jurisdiction aka legal responsibility of the US government. In that capacity, they have some rights, which correspond to limitations on what the US government can do. This includes due process rights (incl. for their removal), and 1A rights (incl. for their status).
Another way of seeing it is that it's true that in theory the same standard applies, but in practice for a deportation the govt needs to be able to document the problem (because of due process rights). If the problem is literally just wrong-think (no other allegation), it's very hard for the govt to document that as a legit problem causing an actual national security threat while also credibly abiding by 1A. If wrong-think is a national security threat, shouldn't it be prosecuted against citizens too? Actual national security threats like terrorist activity (not mere language) are prosecuted against citizens too. For granting a visa in the first place, there's no real need to document anything, because no one literally ever has a “right” to a visa or to access the US (in practice it's a bit more complicated) and being refused to move to a new place doesn't pose the same due process problems than being coerced into moving to a new place.
Yes, free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Yes, it applies to everyone, known exceptions notwithstanding. Yes, it helps to be reminded of this.
Here's the issue:
After 8+ years of 1. the social justice class shutting down speech, 2. policing language by the progressive Patronarchy (aka those self righteous souls who patronize the helpless and the marginalized), and 3. getting reasonable people fired for using the wrong language, you must understand that there will be a certain amount of reticence regarding militant Islamic “speech” supporting a terrorist organization and practicing active antisemitism on American soil.
How about this? We wait until all the evidence is in before we conclude anything.
The "campus Left" stood by while speakers they DIDN'T like were threatened, attacked, beaten and chased off campus (Riley Gaines comes to mind.) The problem isn't "free speech" or the lack of it. The problem is there's a war, and only one side has been fighting for the past fifty years. Personally I'm ready to see the Left take some lumps for their obnoxious speech and even more obnoxious actions.
The crucial difference isn't left v. right. The crucial difference is that this punishment for speech is by one or more public officials whose conduct is governed by our Constitution (for the purpose of protecting us all from abuses of power by people in power).
I really rely on FIRE to reasonably and rationally dissect these very complicated free-speech issues. Most politicians and commentators are “ready, fire, aim” when it comes to controversial speech. I may not always like the result, but it isn’t easy living in a free society. Thank you for this.
People I have respected and whose opinions I value are lining up on both sides of this issue.
It is hard to overstate how emotional Nazis in Skokie was for Chicago. The vitriol that enveloped the city. I had left by then but was back visiting friends at that time.
As a diversion since you mentioned Boston College and the IRA , I'd highly recommend Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keith. A mesmerizing true tale of The Troubles and the participants, some who came to question their roles and was it worth it. BC was the hidden depository for documents to be opened at a later date.
I think this is likely unconstitutional, and agree with the general idea that 1A applies to non-citizens. I am somewhat torn on the idea that green cards are offered under conditions that do restrict the rights and add duties to those who hold them. As well that some of the same reasons we would deny entry to a foreign national should continue to be valid for removal until citizenship is granted.
Rather than a pure 1A issue I do see this as a question of how hard a line a green card is, and what restrictions can be applied to holders there of.
Hamas and pro-Hamas agitators are enemies of the United States. We do not have to accept enemies as citizens. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
So non-citizens can speak their minds, within limits. But they are guests and must leave, eventually. A deportation just makes the inevitable goodbye a little earlier.
You make some interesting points. Ultimately, I support first amendment rights for actual citizens. That’s why I agreed with your previous criticisms of some of the legislation designed to combat antisemitism, preferring that we enforce existing laws against criminal behavior. (Sadly, that has not happened. Instead, schools like Columbia and MIT shield foreign students from the consequences of their behavior if disciplining them would put their visas at risk.)
We should be using every tool at our disposal to purge this country of foreign nationals that come here to undermine the U.S., foment violence, steal intellectual property, and spy on us. If defending these hostile foreign actors is part of FIRE’s mission, that’s your prerogative, but I will find other ways to support free expression for Americans.
"We should be using every tool at our disposal to purge this country of foreign nationals that come here to undermine the U.S., foment violence, steal intellectual property, and spy on us." Amen.
This is simple, free speech is granted to anyone on US Soil. Supporting terrorists, acting on their behalf, and committing hate crimes is not protected, especially for non citizens. If they can prove in a court of law that he did in fact do this, then he should be deported. If they cant, then he stays. Its that sinple.
You can be against the war without supporting hamas or the Islamic Republic. Unfortunately many pro Pali protesters haven't figured that out and instead have supported martyrdom, terrorism, hamas, and have participated in hate crimes towards American jews on campuses. So.. the left should be careful not to fuck this up and be extra careful to not go to bat for terrorist apologist when we need now more than ever to get our country back from trump.. and foolishness on the left helped get us here. We have to stop going off our first gut reactions and look at the facts and hold everyone accountable to the same rules.
I think there's more going on here than the State Department is telling us. Khalil isn't a student and he isn't a protester. There's a lot of very curious information coming out. Khalil is some kind of agent. How did he get permanent residency on a student visa? Especially after only two years? We know that he participated in some illegal acts at Columbia. Why isn't State calling that out in his deportation orders? Something funny is going on here, and I think the First Amendment issue is going to wind up being moot.
I don't understand what speech has to do with this. His behavior disrupted the campus. It harassed Jewish students. He participated in damaging property. He was involved in using coercion to try and force the uni to divest from Israeli investment. He did not peacefully protest outside the uni gates with a placard. Had anyone exhibited the same behavior outside of the context of political speech, they would be deported. The political speech should not be a defense to odious behavior.
Great, balanced article. But your position that free speech should be unlimited is highly objectionable. If promoting and encouraging violence and murder isn't illegal, then it should be. Words have consequences
Thanks for this. I would like to see a discussion between one of you and Ilya Shapiro or others who swear this is not a free speech issue. I'm not sure if the disagreement grounds out in relevant facts or a more foundational philosophical difference
I wish the FIRE discussion had addressed Rubio's argument that
a) under U.S, code no alien who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" is admissible to the U.S. and
b) if Khalid asserted that he did not so support and espouse Hamas at the time of entry then he materially lied to the U.S. government to get his visa and green card and so
c) is deportable on that ground.
I remain very uncomfortable with such a policy on free-speech grounds even if the SC were to deem it constitutional. But I would like a serious answer to Rubio's argument.
"Yes, the state can and will take into consideration things like a potential immigrant’s viewpoint for granting a green card, visa, or citizenship in the first place. But once they’re here, we believe the clearest and most pragmatic approach is for the First Amendment to apply consistently."
This is nothing more than hypocritical. The clearest and most consistent approach is that the same standard be used for admission and deportation. That's literally how the immigration law is already written. A valid reason to keep them out is also a valid reason to kick them out. Full stop. The presence of any alien in our country is a privilege, not a Right, that may be revoked at any time.
CUAD is a group that has not merely 'protested', right here and now they are according to their own words "fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” they illegally occupied buildings, disrupted classes and obstructed free movement, assaulted students and security officers, engaged in stalking, death threats, bomb threats and called for arson of school buildings and worse. They don't merely glorify mob violence and genocide, THEY ASPIRE TO IT AND RECRUIT FOR IT. I realize that FIRE is rightfully very careful about the legal definitions of harassment, true threat, and the like, but they've clearly met that standard time and again. Bluntly, these 'activists' aren't just verbally supporting terrorists, they themselves ARE terrorists (and I do NOT use that term lightly at all, but rather according to the legal definition found in 8 USC 1182). They are a homegrown Taliban. Those who are aliens should be deported and those who aren't should be arrested for their crimes. Speaking an unpopular opinion doesn't make you immune to the neutral application of the Law.
This is the point that I don't see advocates for Khalil address. If you wouldn't be let in based on your statement and beliefs, why would you be protected from deportation for beliefs that would have excluded you from entry in the first place? He is not a citizen. He is a guest.
People who don't live under US jurisdiction don't have a right to access US jurisdiction. People who live in the US, regardless of their statuts, are under US jurisdiction aka legal responsibility of the US government. In that capacity, they have some rights, which correspond to limitations on what the US government can do. This includes due process rights (incl. for their removal), and 1A rights (incl. for their status).
Another way of seeing it is that it's true that in theory the same standard applies, but in practice for a deportation the govt needs to be able to document the problem (because of due process rights). If the problem is literally just wrong-think (no other allegation), it's very hard for the govt to document that as a legit problem causing an actual national security threat while also credibly abiding by 1A. If wrong-think is a national security threat, shouldn't it be prosecuted against citizens too? Actual national security threats like terrorist activity (not mere language) are prosecuted against citizens too. For granting a visa in the first place, there's no real need to document anything, because no one literally ever has a “right” to a visa or to access the US (in practice it's a bit more complicated) and being refused to move to a new place doesn't pose the same due process problems than being coerced into moving to a new place.
I fully support defending highly objectionable speech that is made by American Citizens.
This person is not an American citizen.
I understand your argument. I'm not yelling at your or angry at you. I don't think you're a bad person.
But I think your reasoning on this is flawed. He's not an American and therefore has no 'right' to be here.
Yes, free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Yes, it applies to everyone, known exceptions notwithstanding. Yes, it helps to be reminded of this.
Here's the issue:
After 8+ years of 1. the social justice class shutting down speech, 2. policing language by the progressive Patronarchy (aka those self righteous souls who patronize the helpless and the marginalized), and 3. getting reasonable people fired for using the wrong language, you must understand that there will be a certain amount of reticence regarding militant Islamic “speech” supporting a terrorist organization and practicing active antisemitism on American soil.
How about this? We wait until all the evidence is in before we conclude anything.
The "campus Left" stood by while speakers they DIDN'T like were threatened, attacked, beaten and chased off campus (Riley Gaines comes to mind.) The problem isn't "free speech" or the lack of it. The problem is there's a war, and only one side has been fighting for the past fifty years. Personally I'm ready to see the Left take some lumps for their obnoxious speech and even more obnoxious actions.
The crucial difference isn't left v. right. The crucial difference is that this punishment for speech is by one or more public officials whose conduct is governed by our Constitution (for the purpose of protecting us all from abuses of power by people in power).
I really rely on FIRE to reasonably and rationally dissect these very complicated free-speech issues. Most politicians and commentators are “ready, fire, aim” when it comes to controversial speech. I may not always like the result, but it isn’t easy living in a free society. Thank you for this.
People I have respected and whose opinions I value are lining up on both sides of this issue.
It is hard to overstate how emotional Nazis in Skokie was for Chicago. The vitriol that enveloped the city. I had left by then but was back visiting friends at that time.
As a diversion since you mentioned Boston College and the IRA , I'd highly recommend Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keith. A mesmerizing true tale of The Troubles and the participants, some who came to question their roles and was it worth it. BC was the hidden depository for documents to be opened at a later date.
I think this is likely unconstitutional, and agree with the general idea that 1A applies to non-citizens. I am somewhat torn on the idea that green cards are offered under conditions that do restrict the rights and add duties to those who hold them. As well that some of the same reasons we would deny entry to a foreign national should continue to be valid for removal until citizenship is granted.
Rather than a pure 1A issue I do see this as a question of how hard a line a green card is, and what restrictions can be applied to holders there of.
Hamas and pro-Hamas agitators are enemies of the United States. We do not have to accept enemies as citizens. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
So non-citizens can speak their minds, within limits. But they are guests and must leave, eventually. A deportation just makes the inevitable goodbye a little earlier.
You make some interesting points. Ultimately, I support first amendment rights for actual citizens. That’s why I agreed with your previous criticisms of some of the legislation designed to combat antisemitism, preferring that we enforce existing laws against criminal behavior. (Sadly, that has not happened. Instead, schools like Columbia and MIT shield foreign students from the consequences of their behavior if disciplining them would put their visas at risk.)
We should be using every tool at our disposal to purge this country of foreign nationals that come here to undermine the U.S., foment violence, steal intellectual property, and spy on us. If defending these hostile foreign actors is part of FIRE’s mission, that’s your prerogative, but I will find other ways to support free expression for Americans.
"We should be using every tool at our disposal to purge this country of foreign nationals that come here to undermine the U.S., foment violence, steal intellectual property, and spy on us." Amen.
Find yourself someone who loves you as much as FIRE loves defending terrorists and their bootlickers.
This is simple, free speech is granted to anyone on US Soil. Supporting terrorists, acting on their behalf, and committing hate crimes is not protected, especially for non citizens. If they can prove in a court of law that he did in fact do this, then he should be deported. If they cant, then he stays. Its that sinple.
You can be against the war without supporting hamas or the Islamic Republic. Unfortunately many pro Pali protesters haven't figured that out and instead have supported martyrdom, terrorism, hamas, and have participated in hate crimes towards American jews on campuses. So.. the left should be careful not to fuck this up and be extra careful to not go to bat for terrorist apologist when we need now more than ever to get our country back from trump.. and foolishness on the left helped get us here. We have to stop going off our first gut reactions and look at the facts and hold everyone accountable to the same rules.
I think there's more going on here than the State Department is telling us. Khalil isn't a student and he isn't a protester. There's a lot of very curious information coming out. Khalil is some kind of agent. How did he get permanent residency on a student visa? Especially after only two years? We know that he participated in some illegal acts at Columbia. Why isn't State calling that out in his deportation orders? Something funny is going on here, and I think the First Amendment issue is going to wind up being moot.
He got married to a citizen while on a student visa, that’s how.
I don't understand what speech has to do with this. His behavior disrupted the campus. It harassed Jewish students. He participated in damaging property. He was involved in using coercion to try and force the uni to divest from Israeli investment. He did not peacefully protest outside the uni gates with a placard. Had anyone exhibited the same behavior outside of the context of political speech, they would be deported. The political speech should not be a defense to odious behavior.
‘Had anyone else exhibited the same behavior outside of the context of political speech, they would be deported.’
Either that, or given a pardon by the current president.
Great, balanced article. But your position that free speech should be unlimited is highly objectionable. If promoting and encouraging violence and murder isn't illegal, then it should be. Words have consequences
Thanks for this. I would like to see a discussion between one of you and Ilya Shapiro or others who swear this is not a free speech issue. I'm not sure if the disagreement grounds out in relevant facts or a more foundational philosophical difference