The Mahmoud Khalil case really should not be as controversial as it is.
US immigration law plainly states in black and white that supporting terrorism, or associating with groups that support terrorism, renders you inadmissible into the United States.
Khalil, while in the United States, has acted in support of an organization that virtually everyone in the world agrees is a terrorist organization. Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we need to welcome people into this country who want us dead.
US immigration law also defines assassination as a terrorist act, so the deportations of people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's killing are also consistent with the law. Again, freedom of speech doesn't mean we need to welcome people into this country who want us dead.
These are not freedom of speech issues, they are simple national security issues.
There is a difference, yes, but they are still both grounds for inadmissibility into the United States, per 8 USC 1182. Look it up, the law could not possibly be any more clear.
There is also a difference between corroborating with groups that carry out the killing of others and engaging with crowds to foment hatred of that same enemy. Both are problematic, however.
The Mahmoud Khalil case really should not be as controversial as it is.
US immigration law plainly states in black and white that supporting terrorism, or associating with groups that support terrorism, renders you inadmissible into the United States.
Khalil, while in the United States, has acted in support of an organization that virtually everyone in the world agrees is a terrorist organization. Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we need to welcome people into this country who want us dead.
US immigration law also defines assassination as a terrorist act, so the deportations of people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's killing are also consistent with the law. Again, freedom of speech doesn't mean we need to welcome people into this country who want us dead.
These are not freedom of speech issues, they are simple national security issues.
There does seem to be a difference between celebrating the killing of someone and actually killing someone. Just saying.
There is a difference, yes, but they are still both grounds for inadmissibility into the United States, per 8 USC 1182. Look it up, the law could not possibly be any more clear.
There is also a difference between corroborating with groups that carry out the killing of others and engaging with crowds to foment hatred of that same enemy. Both are problematic, however.