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.
I just read their statement, Columbia University Apartheid Divest. There is absolutely no indication that they support Hamas. That is a complete distortion of their raison d'être.
I have read every book Hannah Arendt wrote. And even Hannah Arendt didn't support Zionism. Are you going to tell me that Hannah Arendt was an anti-Semite?
Your video maker doesn't seem to realize how discrediting his interviewing David French, and treating him as an authority, is for most Trump supporters. Even more discrediting is the refusal to acknowledge the other Free Speech problem which many expressions of support for Hamas entail, in that not a few of these expressions call, explicitly or implicitly, for violence against Jews. I don't know if Khalil went there, but he is supporting Hamas, right? That is not so far from supporting the Nazi party, or supporting Stalin's communism, is it?
Morally, I have little issue w/ what Rubio did, though I could be convinced that he isn't being careful enough by latching onto a law's language that could be abused by others. The specifically constitutional issue, which (I guess) turns on the "person" issue, could go either way from me, but that's precisely what the video doesn't address, or try to convince me about. The video just wants me to adopt the same attitude on the Trump admin on free speech as French has, which, news-flash, ain't ever gonna happen.
Thanks for the Texas case info. Very glad that bad law got blocked.
I would not have much problem with a somewhat similar law that banned “protest gatherings” after 10:00 PM; communities have a right to regulate such things, and indeed permits for protests have long been established as legitimate [whether I or FIRE would find *some* of said restrictions too onerous notwithstanding].
But as written this is a ridiculously easy call. Shame on Texas’ legislature and governor for this one.
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.
Wait a minute — my understanding is that Khalil organized protests on Columbia’s campus. How is that aiding and abetting terrorism?
He acted as a spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, who openly endorse the actions of Hamas: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html
8 USC 1182 (3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb):
"Any alien who ... is a representative of ... a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity ... is inadmissible."
It literally could not be any more clear-cut than this.
I just read their statement, Columbia University Apartheid Divest. There is absolutely no indication that they support Hamas. That is a complete distortion of their raison d'être.
I have read every book Hannah Arendt wrote. And even Hannah Arendt didn't support Zionism. Are you going to tell me that Hannah Arendt was an anti-Semite?
Their own substack literally celebrates the October 7th attack: https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/commemorating-al-aqsa-flood-honoring
Your video maker doesn't seem to realize how discrediting his interviewing David French, and treating him as an authority, is for most Trump supporters. Even more discrediting is the refusal to acknowledge the other Free Speech problem which many expressions of support for Hamas entail, in that not a few of these expressions call, explicitly or implicitly, for violence against Jews. I don't know if Khalil went there, but he is supporting Hamas, right? That is not so far from supporting the Nazi party, or supporting Stalin's communism, is it?
Morally, I have little issue w/ what Rubio did, though I could be convinced that he isn't being careful enough by latching onto a law's language that could be abused by others. The specifically constitutional issue, which (I guess) turns on the "person" issue, could go either way from me, but that's precisely what the video doesn't address, or try to convince me about. The video just wants me to adopt the same attitude on the Trump admin on free speech as French has, which, news-flash, ain't ever gonna happen.
Rethink your persuasion strategies.
Thanks for the Texas case info. Very glad that bad law got blocked.
I would not have much problem with a somewhat similar law that banned “protest gatherings” after 10:00 PM; communities have a right to regulate such things, and indeed permits for protests have long been established as legitimate [whether I or FIRE would find *some* of said restrictions too onerous notwithstanding].
But as written this is a ridiculously easy call. Shame on Texas’ legislature and governor for this one.