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.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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
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.
"Isn't it illegal to support a designated terrorist organization?"
No, so long as it does not involve material support. Simple statements of support have never been included in the specifications of "material support" in legislation.
You can imagine why this is so. The designation of "terrorist" is at the discretion of the government. If the government wished to nullify the First Amendment, which would statutorily require Congressional and state legislative approval, it could do so simply by identifying causes it disapproved of as terrorist. For example, the current administration seems to wish Ukraine to lay down arms and accept dictated terms. Many in the US do not support this. With Ukraine using drones to attack targets in Russia, the administration could declare the Ukrainian military a terrorist organization. If supportive speech were considered "material support," the majority of Americans would then know that expressing opposition to the administration's policy was illegal.
We are not speaking of Hamas activists here, Ms. Mac. Khalil is apparently a vocal supporter of Hamas, not a member of Hamas.
I believe it is deeply wrongheaded to support Hamas on many levels, but a fair number thoroughly non-violent and generally normal Americans, including some who teach with success in schools, don't feel that way and feel free to say so, as, indeed, they should. (Just as supporters of the Israeli Right may be teaching in schools with success, despite the fact that I believe they are deeply wrongheaded.)
I'm not sure how to answer you, M-SuperStripe (though I think we should agree to leave Ms. Mac out of it). Supporter/member seems a normal distinction we make without confusion. I am a vocal supporter of the New York Mets (worse luck!) but I'm not a member of the New York Mets. I root for the team, I don't play for it.
Hamas members are in a political/military command structure. Hamas supporters are not. (I think, to borrow from the post, no one believed that Boston College students voicing support of the Irish Republican Army were members of the IRA.)
Hamas is more an ideology than an organized group. That's why they're so hard to totally eliminate. The Mets are not an ideology - they're a very specific and very clearly defined group. It's crystal clear what makes someone a 'Met' or 'Not a Met'. With the understanding that Hamas (and most terror groups) are more an ideology than a clearly organized that has extremely obvious markers of 'member' vs. 'non-member' I repeat my question.
I cannot respond to your question because I do not share your understanding, M-SuperStripe. Hamas is, in fact, not an ideology. It is very much an organized group: a political party in control of a government and a military, initially secured through election.
If you want to hold that the Hamas charter and political platform constitute an ideology, say, "Hamasism," you're free to use language that way. But a person subscribing to "Hamasism" would still not thereby be a member of Hamas, any more than someone who endorses the imperial agenda of Vladimir Putin and his political party is thereby a member of United Russia.
Please go to Palestine (or the middle east in general) and identify people who are 'members of Hamas' and 'not members of Hamas'. Similar to how you can easily and clearly identify someone who is a 'Member of the Mets' and 'Not a Met'. If this is difficult or impossible - I posit that Hamas is more an ideology than an organization.
Although this article is respectful and repeatedly mentions "it is complicated" I think everything that can be done to this man, should be. What happened to peaceful protesting? Why is he allowed to intimidate a race of people and INCITE others to destroy and threaten U.S. citizens?
Another thing is that it seems that the government protects these rights over their own people.
Kyle Rittenhouse -The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to defend themselves and their property
A LOT of J6 people - the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
The right to act on one's moral beliefs - anyone required to lie and say that boys can be girls/girls can be boys
Hunter Biden's laptop - freedom of the press
AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS
AND DUTIES OF MAN
PARENTS BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR MINOR CHILDRENS' RECORDS - It is the duty of every person
to aid, support, educate and protect his minor
children, and it is the duty of children to honor
their parents always and to aid, support and
protect them when they need it.
Right to protection of honor, personal
reputation, and private and family life.
COVID - Right to the preservation of health and to wellbeing.
DEREK CHAUVIN, DANIEL PENNY, PRESIDENT TRUMP - Every accused person is
presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.
WE ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST - Likewise every person has the right to an
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 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.
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.
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.
Find yourself someone who loves you as much as FIRE loves defending terrorists and their bootlickers.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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
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.
Isn't it illegal to support a designated terrorist organization?
If so, his "speech" (both verbal and the protests he led and organized) were support of hamaz and therefore not 1A speech at all
"Isn't it illegal to support a designated terrorist organization?"
No, so long as it does not involve material support. Simple statements of support have never been included in the specifications of "material support" in legislation.
You can imagine why this is so. The designation of "terrorist" is at the discretion of the government. If the government wished to nullify the First Amendment, which would statutorily require Congressional and state legislative approval, it could do so simply by identifying causes it disapproved of as terrorist. For example, the current administration seems to wish Ukraine to lay down arms and accept dictated terms. Many in the US do not support this. With Ukraine using drones to attack targets in Russia, the administration could declare the Ukrainian military a terrorist organization. If supportive speech were considered "material support," the majority of Americans would then know that expressing opposition to the administration's policy was illegal.
Gosh. Let's hope Hamas activists don't show up at your house or your children's school.
We are not speaking of Hamas activists here, Ms. Mac. Khalil is apparently a vocal supporter of Hamas, not a member of Hamas.
I believe it is deeply wrongheaded to support Hamas on many levels, but a fair number thoroughly non-violent and generally normal Americans, including some who teach with success in schools, don't feel that way and feel free to say so, as, indeed, they should. (Just as supporters of the Israeli Right may be teaching in schools with success, despite the fact that I believe they are deeply wrongheaded.)
"Ms. Mac. Khalil is apparently a vocal supporter of Hamas, not a member of Hamas." What exactly is the difference?
I'm not sure how to answer you, M-SuperStripe (though I think we should agree to leave Ms. Mac out of it). Supporter/member seems a normal distinction we make without confusion. I am a vocal supporter of the New York Mets (worse luck!) but I'm not a member of the New York Mets. I root for the team, I don't play for it.
Hamas members are in a political/military command structure. Hamas supporters are not. (I think, to borrow from the post, no one believed that Boston College students voicing support of the Irish Republican Army were members of the IRA.)
Hamas is more an ideology than an organized group. That's why they're so hard to totally eliminate. The Mets are not an ideology - they're a very specific and very clearly defined group. It's crystal clear what makes someone a 'Met' or 'Not a Met'. With the understanding that Hamas (and most terror groups) are more an ideology than a clearly organized that has extremely obvious markers of 'member' vs. 'non-member' I repeat my question.
The U.S. government says Hamas is an organization. https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
I apologize for being pithy here but - we trust the government now? :)
I cannot respond to your question because I do not share your understanding, M-SuperStripe. Hamas is, in fact, not an ideology. It is very much an organized group: a political party in control of a government and a military, initially secured through election.
If you want to hold that the Hamas charter and political platform constitute an ideology, say, "Hamasism," you're free to use language that way. But a person subscribing to "Hamasism" would still not thereby be a member of Hamas, any more than someone who endorses the imperial agenda of Vladimir Putin and his political party is thereby a member of United Russia.
Please go to Palestine (or the middle east in general) and identify people who are 'members of Hamas' and 'not members of Hamas'. Similar to how you can easily and clearly identify someone who is a 'Member of the Mets' and 'Not a Met'. If this is difficult or impossible - I posit that Hamas is more an ideology than an organization.
Although this article is respectful and repeatedly mentions "it is complicated" I think everything that can be done to this man, should be. What happened to peaceful protesting? Why is he allowed to intimidate a race of people and INCITE others to destroy and threaten U.S. citizens?
Another thing is that it seems that the government protects these rights over their own people.
Kyle Rittenhouse -The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to defend themselves and their property
A LOT of J6 people - the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
The right to act on one's moral beliefs - anyone required to lie and say that boys can be girls/girls can be boys
Hunter Biden's laptop - freedom of the press
AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS
AND DUTIES OF MAN
PARENTS BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR MINOR CHILDRENS' RECORDS - It is the duty of every person
to aid, support, educate and protect his minor
children, and it is the duty of children to honor
their parents always and to aid, support and
protect them when they need it.
Right to protection of honor, personal
reputation, and private and family life.
COVID - Right to the preservation of health and to wellbeing.
DEREK CHAUVIN, DANIEL PENNY, PRESIDENT TRUMP - Every accused person is
presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.
WE ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST - Likewise every person has the right to an
education that will prepare him to attain a
decent life, to raise his standard of living, and
to be a useful member of society.
The right to an education includes the
right to equality of opportunity in every case,
in accordance with natural talents, merit and
the desire to utilize the resources that the
state or the community is in a position to
provide.
Every person has the right to receive,
free, at least a primary education.
Forgive us if we have doubts/complaints
Heather
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 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.