So Mr. president, is not an attack on free speech tyranny?
https://fortune.com/2025/03/11/trump-ar … pathizers/
------
Khalil’s detention, and the administration’s promise to deport him for protesting, has sparked a sharp response among some Democrats, like Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who called Trump a dictator for his crackdown on speech and protest.
“A President who detains a protestor and revokes their legal status can only be called one thing: A dictator,” Pressley said in a post on Bluesky. “Silencing dissent is unlawful, unjust, and authoritarian through and through.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, responding to a news report about the arrest, promised to revoke “the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”
-----------
Can I be arrested just for participation in a peaceful protest? That is what both Rubio and Trump imply. What sort of new form despotism is this?
So, what I have always suspected begins......I called it, no matter what mental gymnastics anyone performs to prove it to the contrary, I said Trump could be the one to alter free speech laws without any real damage to his reputation. It would seem they're well aware of it, and he is playing with the edge of altering the definition of freedom of speech.
I'm equally excited and concerned to see just how far he goes, and in which of many directions he chooses to go toward.Thats the nice thing about already being labeled a dictator, tyrant, hitler, worst human to ever exist...
They have no place to go... so there is nothing to stop Trump from doing what needs to be done.
The Leftwing lunacy, aka our Legacy Media, has already spent ten years telling you Trump is the worst thing to ever exist... and the people ignored that and re-elected him in a landslide... well... Legacy Media no longer has any impact, they have already done everything possible to sabotage and destroy the man.
So now he can do pretty much anything and no one is going to bat an eye about what the media has to say about it... they have already said it all.
Something about the Boy Who Cried Wolf... comes to mind... not sure why.So now he can do pretty much anything and no one is going to bat an eye about what the media has to say about it... they have already said it all.
--------
And there is more to say and the crisis created by Trump and his tyranny will be reported from every media source will not be stopped. Helter Skelter....The ennui has definitely set in for many, and the tactics are becoming more banal by the day. It makes me wonder why the media continues to double down. Outside of the odd office television in the waiting room, or two of the 20 televisions in the gym, I don't know anyone who still partakes in televised news anymore. Slightly less rare are those who keep up by reading articles online, and even most of those folks only read the header and maybe a paragraph or two.
I've come to the point where I honestly believe more money is invested into social marketing than any other facet of news media now. They pay contractors to go into online forums and stimulate traffic and dialogue inorganically as a regular practice. I recently took on several side jobs of this nature for adult models, and another for a political influencer.
It all seems contrived, and they've burned public trust to the ground. The only support they get outside of the vocal minority are those they pay to spread their swill. Oh, the future looks fascinatingly bleak.
I'm equal parts enjoying and hating living through these historical times.Sounds like a side hustle worth getting into, you should write an article about it, I would enjoy reading it.
Trump has a lot of dumb people mesmerized to view his clearly tyrannical behavior as just business as usual. We will see how long it lasts....
Could last the rest of most of our lives if all of the WWIII fearmongering is to be believed. Keeping my fingers crossed that things don't escalate to those levels, but I already have buddies deploying to several interesting locales and things seem as if they're getting tenser by the day.
I have been occupying my time with daydreams about press gangs, and asking myself whether or not the American public would have the gumption to revolt in the streets to save their compatriots from their own government, or if we'd be like Ukraine and openly promote/advertise men rounding up their own mothers, fathers, wives, and children to fight to the last man.
Preferably, the media would just pick a fricken topic to hone in on, give me the receipts, and leave out all of the partisan sensationalism so I can actually ingest a topic without regurgitating before I even finish reading. I can't even go to the left-wing extremists to get verifiable dirt on what's actually occurring anymore, let alone trust my own reluctantly chosen side of the fence to tell me what's what.
There are a lot more tyrannical sympathizers in this country than I thought. Well, I am not going to wait and see, Trump needs to be stopped now before what was once known as America becomes unrecognizable.
And the other side of the story, the one you "forgot" to mention: Can you be arrested for supporting America's enemies? For citizens it is called "treason" - for foreigners can we not deport them for the activity we call treason?
(Yes, supporting a terrorist group that would harm America IS "treason")No, as usual your are wrong. We are not at war with Hamas. Speaking and peacefully protest an alternate point of view is not treason. What do you think happened during the Vietnam War? The Israel government and its policies is not necessary without fault or blame.
To say that being against Israeli policy is anti Semitic is just more rightwing BS.I'm sorry, Cred, but being "at war" has exactly zero to do with treason. It is all a matter of aiding/abetting the enemy, and that was done for Hamas with the "protest". Add in that Hamas is absolutely our enemy (all terrorists are, and Hamas is indisputably a terrorist organization) and bingo! You have treason masquerading under the name of "protest" and "free speech".
Label it however you wish, it falls under the definition of treason and should be treated as such.I am sorry, too, Wilderness to have to refer you to a basic civics primer.
Being at war with the United States has EVERYThing to do with treason. I notice that you conveniently excuse the possibility of all the Vietnam Era protesters as enginging in the act of Treason against the US during the protests? Conservatives always duck and hide when confronted with an undeniable reality, do they not?
Is treason defined just because one takes a position contrary to an inane Trump policy? So, excuse me if I get the definition for Treason from the Constitution itself rather than from just "your opinion"
So, is the gentleman in question guilty of waging war against the United or giving aid and comfort to "the enemy"? We are not at war with Hamas and I can't see how expressing ones views without violence or blatant violation of the law is treason.
It is just more of Trump trying to muzzle discordant voices and I and others on the left will castigate him for it.
Treason Explained
The Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States or giving its enemies "aid and comfort." It also specifies that the federal government cannot secure a conviction for treason unless two witnesses testify to the same overt act or if the person accused of treason confesses in open court.
Clause 2 makes clear that Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason.
Consider the following frequently asked questions about treason under the Constitution:
What does "levying war" against the United States mean?
"Levying war" refers to assembling for a purpose "treasonable in itself." It requires actions against the United States and not just a conspiracy against the nation.
In other words, it means "open action" against the United States through the use of force. See the discussion on Ex parte Bollman (1807) for more information.
What does it mean to give "aid or comfort" to an enemy of the United States?
Giving aid or comfort to an enemy means more than giving assistance that is "casually useful" to them. Instead, the aid or comfort must assist the enemy in some essential way to assist in their plan or design to commit a treasonous act.
To convict someone of the crime of treason for giving aid or comfort to an enemy, the government must prove two elements:
Adherence or loyalty to an enemy of the United States, and
Providing aid or comfort to the enemy.
As the Supreme Court has noted, treason cannot exist if either element is missing. For example, a U.S. citizen may favor or harbor sympathies for an enemy or hold beliefs that are disloyal to the United States. However, so long as they don't act on those by giving aid or comfort to the enemy, they have not committed treason.
Similarly, a U.S. citizen can take actions that, in fact, aid or comfort the enemy. However, as long as there is no adherence or loyalty to the enemy (i.e., no intent to betray the United States), there is no treason.
For example, a citizen can give a speech criticizing the government or organize a strike in a steel plant during a time of war. These actions could impair the United States' ability to defend itself or diminish the country's strength. However, if the citizen did so without intending to betray the United States, there would be no treason.
Additionally, giving aid or comfort requires an act of some kind. As the Supreme Court noted in Cramer v. United States (1945), the very nature of giving aid or comfort contemplates a "deed or physical activity" rather than a "mental operation."
An act that strengthens (or tends to strengthen) the enemy or weakens (or tends to weaken) the United States likely constitutes giving "aid or comfort" to the enemy. In other words, "thoughts and attitudes alone" cannot constitute treason.
See the discussions about Cramer and Haupt v. United States (1947) below for more information.
Those who are not citizens and are in the country on Visas need to follow the set laws to remain in the country. WE have set laws for visa holders. Rep. Ayanna Pressley needs to learn our laws. Unfortunately, we have people like her in our government ready to blatantly disregard set laws.
Marco Rubio is correct --- it is within U.S. law to revoke visas and green cards of individuals supporting Hamas, because Hamas has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government. Under U.S. immigration law, individuals who support, finance, or are affiliated with terrorist organizations can be denied entry, have their visas revoked, or be deported if they are already in the country.
"Legal Basis for Deportation:
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(3)(B):
This law makes any non-citizen inadmissible or deportable if they are found to support or be affiliated with a terrorist organization (such as Hamas).
Even expressing support or providing non-monetary aid to a terrorist group can be grounds for deportation.
INA § 237(a)(4)(B):
Allows the government to remove a visa holder or green card holder who engages in or supports terrorist activities.
This applies even if they are not directly involved in violence but have publicly or financially supported a terrorist group.
Visa and Green Card Revocation Authority:
The State Department can revoke visas at any time if an individual is deemed a national security threat.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the authority to revoke green cards and begin deportation proceedings for ties to terrorism.
Precedents & Enforcement:
In the past, the U.S. has revoked visas and green cards for individuals associated with terrorist organizations, including groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The same legal framework applies to Hamas, since it is a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.
In short, Rubio’s statement aligns with existing U.S. laws, and the administration has the legal power to revoke visas and deport Hamas supporters without needing new legislation."
I like visitors to follow our laws. I also wish we had more intelligent Representatives that would also respect our written laws.
.All he has ever done is advocate for the human rights of Palestinians and try to draw attention to the issues of Palestinians POTUS does not get to decide what speech they think … is offensive and punishable. That principle couldn't be more central democracy...this is repression of student activism and political speech.
Green card holders have broad rights as legal residents of the US, including protection by all laws of this country...Khalil’s does not have a student visa, but rather a green card.
This is an ugly example of the Trump administration using the power of government to go after people or institutions they do not like or agree with. In a free society that shouldn’t happen...
There is nothing antisemitic about criticizing Israel over its actions in Gaza or expressing solidarity with Palestinians and calling for a ceasefire.
For folks to act as if everybody in the movement is supporting Hamas is a vast oversimplification, generalization. Many or most people involved in the movement nationally were opposed to the war because of the fact that there were a lot of people dying, a lot of civilians were getting killed.....you know, the same argument that a lot of you have applied to Russia's invasion of Ukraine."There is nothing antisemitic about criticizing Israel over its actions in Gaza or expressing solidarity with Palestinians and calling for a ceasefire." Willow You left this part out---
Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist, played a key role in CUAD’s initiatives. During the Gaza Solidarity Encampment in April 2024, he acted as a lead negotiator between student activists and university administrators. Although he did not physically participate in the encampments, his involvement in discussions with officials underscored his push for Palestinian advocacy and efforts to pressure the university to DIVEST from Israel.
In my view, this crosses the line from free speech into antisemitic demands. As he is not a U.S. citizen, his rhetoric and activism could be grounds for deportation, given the nature of his statements and their implications. His rights end when he breaks our laws. His request would equate to asking a university to DIVEST from respecting any given religion and its people—or to divest from Canada. This is America. Antisemitism should be given no room to grow here, just as racism has no room to grow.
And it certainly should have no room to grow under the guise of free speech.Source? And ...
"Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist, played a key role in CUAD’s initiatives. During the Gaza Solidarity Encampment in April 2024, he acted as a lead negotiator between student activists and university administrators.
What is wrong with that? That's a reason to be deported? Have your green card taken away?
You claim he has broken the law? What laws would those be specifically
"his involvement in discussions with officials underscored his push for Palestinian advocacy and efforts to pressure the university to DIVEST from Israel."
THE ABSOLUTE HORROR.... He would have done better if he had just chosen to attack an officer with a flagpole, right?
What laws have those whether citizens or not have broken in peacefully protesting an administration policy?
Supporting Hamas means actively engaging violently or otherwise against based on a declaration of War against them. Otherwise, Hamas, remains Israel's concern. The crime is inciting and participation is disorderly conduct and peaceful protest is not that.
The Constitution says that the people are allowed to peaceable assemble to petition the Government, or is Trump allowed to define treason as anything that he wants it to be?
Rubio, as well, needs to read the Constitution instead of making absurd statements and threats in direct contradiction to the idea of freedom of speech.
Was this fellow associated with a terrorist organization or was he advocating for consideration of an alternate view of Hamas and the Israeli government complicity regarding the actions of Hamas? I expect everyone, including myself, to speak and advocate anything that I want without silly charges of "treason" being applied.
And what about the "traitors" that protested the Vietnam War, were they guilty of treason?
The German-American Bund was marching around during the 1930s supporting Hitler and the Third Reich, certainly against American foreign policy, even though war had yet to be declared. Were they guilty of treason?
Trump is crossing a dangerous line and we on the left are going to point that out to him.
-
"Even expressing support or providing non-monetary aid to a terrorist group can be grounds for deportation"
---
The above statement must be challenged as impinging upon my right of free speech and we don't exclude those rights for others as non-citizens just because they are not citizens.
--
"Trump has repeatedly alleged that pro-Palestinian activists, including Mr Khalil, support Hamas, a group designated a terrorist organisation by the US. The president argues these protesters should be deported and called Mr Khalil's arrest "the first of many to come".
I and many others sympathize with the Palestinian issue, do you want to deport me too?is a conservative's discernment ability able to separate pro-Hamas verses pro Palestinian? Or is that just that more rubblish that Trump feeds the public?
------
Someone's mere speech and advocacy is not a national security threat."Supporting Hamas means actively engaging violently or otherwise against based on a declaration of War against them."
AND it means recruiting for them. AND it means funding them. AND it means advertising for them. AND it means proselytizing for them. AND it means any form of help for them. ALL without any declaration of war.
See, Cred, you don't get to make up definitions that support your far left agenda, that support the destruction of America. You're stuck with the dictionary and history.Using immigration law provisions to deport a green card holder is rare.
They are typically used if ICE alleges a person was “providing direct financial or operational support to a terror organization.
I see nothing in the filing that makes the government's case, do you?Did he provide support for a declared enemy of the US?
Yes he did. Case closed.
As noted, and regardless of what is "typical", ANY form of aid to a terrorist organization (declared enemy of the US) is sufficient to deport them. Notice that if a citizen provided aid to an enemy it is called "treason", with MUCH more undesirable consequences than being sent home. He isn't a traitor, committing treason, because he isn't a citizen, but his actions are just as deplorable, just as objectionable. Not being a citizen does not give free rein to behave in such a manner, not in my world. You may disagree, of course, but don't expect me to follow you in that.Where is the evidence that he provided direct operational support or financial support to hamas? The government isn't even charging him with that,. I challenge you to find the actual charge the government is bringing. The guy lead pro palestinian protests. Pro palestinian does not equal pro Hamas.
This will eventually lead to a scorching Bill of Rights test."Where is the evidence that he provided direct operational support or financial support to hamas?"
I think that silly notion is cleared up. No reason to try and use it again.You're not dealing with the facts. What are the charges against this individual? I mean the in writing, stated charges...
?? I have no idea. Why don't you find out - that might at least tell you if your concept of "aid or abet" is what happened?
For myself, he aided a terrorist group (Hamas) and forfeited any right that he ever had to remain in this country thereby.They're actually are no charges. He is not charged with any crime... you may believe that he aided Hamas but he's not charged with that.
Ah. Then the deportation has no reason behind it other than someone high up doesn't like him. Sounds like Biden is still active somewhere, or more likely that someone learned how to weaponize the justice system from him (can't imagine Biden deporting anyone at all for any but political reasons, political reasons that don't hold now that he is out of office).
Or did you mean formal charges as in a grand jury sitting and indicting him? I would not expect that to happen if ICE is involved. Besides, as I pointed out it is not illegal (to my knowledge) for a foreign citizen to aid and abet an American enemy. Just Americans.
So, you take and advocate a position when “you have no idea’?
I'm not questioning it. The assumption is that there was a reason, with or without a "charge" (does ICE need to formally charge a foreigner with a crime to deport them?)
Yes, but if you don’t mind, I will err on the side of the dictionary and encyclopedia rather than take a chance on your highly esteemed personal opinion.
This is out of line and I will pummel the Trump administration over it.
No I support the destruction of Trumpism and the Rightwinger in general"Yes, but if you don’t mind, I will err on the side of the dictionary and encyclopedia rather than take a chance on your highly esteemed personal opinion."
Interesting comment as you did no such thing. Or maybe I misunderstood you - just what definition/dictionary are you using that says "support" does not mean "support"?
Did you look up the term "treason" in the Constitution? If so did you notice the bit about giving aid and comfort to our enemies? If a citizen can be hanged for giving aid, I think it not unreasonable at all to deport a foreigner for doing the same thing.You evade the question, what about all the protest speech against the Vietnam War during the 1960s, were they not in their mere contrary dissent giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Should not those thousands or millions involved by hanged? Surely, you remember that period? That is what I can discern from your attitude.
Possibly. Are you insinuating that because one person committed a crime without being charged that everyone else can do it too?
On the other hand, a case might (MIGHT!) be made that protesting a war is not the same as praising a terrorist enemy. A pretty weak case, though, I would think.That is ridiculous, wilderness. I could not peacefully protest the Vietnam War without being being arrested? Perhaps you should move to Russia or North Korea? Your "Perhaps" is a stretch that has no real basis of support on your part. I can SAY whatever I like. It is not a crime to have opinions contrary to Trump policy and speak out. I do it all the time and dare anyone to challenge it.
To suggest that millions of Americans who protested the Vietnam War should have been executed for treason is both historically inaccurate and morally indefensible. The right to protest is a fundamental principle of American democracy, enshrined in the First Amendment. Those who opposed the Vietnam War were exercising their constitutional rights, not "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Equating dissent with treason is the mindset of authoritarian regimes, not a free society. Furthermore, your attempt to compare Vietnam-era protesters to Khalil’s antisemitic rhetoric is a false equivalence. There is a vast difference between advocating for peace and spewing hate-filled rhetoric. Your statement not only misrepresents history but also promotes an extremist view that has no place in a civilized discussion.
Vietnam War protesters opposed the war for a variety of reasons, and their concerns evolved over time. Many believed the U.S. had no legitimate reason to be involved in Vietnam’s civil war and saw the war as an unjust intervention in another country’s affairs. The government’s draft policy disproportionately affected young men, particularly those from poor and minority backgrounds. Many felt it was unfair that they were forced to fight while wealthier individuals could avoid service through deferments.
As the war dragged on, the rising death toll of American soldiers fueled opposition. Many felt the government was wasting lives in a conflict that wasn’t winnable. Reports of events like the My Lai Massacre (where U.S. troops killed hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians) and the use of chemical weapons (such as napalm and Agent Orange) shocked the public and fueled protests. The release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 revealed that U.S. officials had misled the public about the war’s progress and their real motives, leading to further outrage.
Some Americans opposed the war because it drained resources that could have been used for domestic programs, including the fight against poverty and racial inequality. Many saw the war as immoral and believed the U.S. should promote peace rather than engage in military conflicts that harmed civilians. The protests took many forms, from peaceful demonstrations and sit-ins to massive marches and, in some cases, violent clashes with authorities. Some of the most famous protests included the 1967 March on the Pentagon, the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests, and the 1970 student strikes after the Kent State shooting.
Khalil is asked a university to "divest" from Israel, it suggests he is advocating for the university to sever its financial ties or investments in Israel. If Khalil's remarks specifically targeted Israel in an antisemitic way, rather than addressing the political or human rights concerns. Additionally, reports suggest that CUAD, under Khalil's involvement, has engaged in activities supporting terrorism, including praising violent actions deemed as "revolutionary." An October 17 article commemorating a Hamas attack stated, "we will not stop demonstrating until Zionism ends."
This is America, can we allow such a seed to be planted regarding Jews, as we did about Blacks in our history? Should we go down this path once again, or should we have learned by our historic mistakes?Khalil is asked a university to "divest" from Israel, it suggests he is advocating for the university to sever its financial ties or investments in Israel. If Khalil's remarks specifically targeted Israel in an antisemitic way, rather than addressing the political or human rights concerns. Additionally, reports suggest that CUAD, under Khalil's involvement, has engaged in activities supportingterrorism, including praising violent actions deemed as "revolutionary." An October 17 article commemorating a Hamas attack stated, "we will not stop demonstrating until Zionism ends.
-------
Khalil is one man, he can "Suggest" what he likes. Why do conservatives continue to presume that advocacy of the rights of the Palestinians in the region constitutes anti-semitism? That is not the way I see it. For heavens sakes, Sharlee, the man can praise what he wants, that is not terrorism or treason against the United States. The Trump administration is way out of line and is dangerously imposing on the right of free speech. You make an excuse for thousands of protesters in an earlier era while you castigate a smaller opposing group today? Did it really matter what the reason for protest in the 1960s were? They were opposing Johnson and Nixon foreign policy and technically by the Rightwinger definition they were guilty of treason. I don't buy any of it. Sorry.....
If the Vietnam protesters were exercising their Constitutional rights, why do we deny Khalil the same treatment?
Advocating for the rights of the Palestinians in the region is only hate filled because Trumpers say so. And that in itself makes this entire matter suspect in my eyes,
The issue is about the policies of Israeli Goverment and is unrelated to hatred of Jews. Opposing Zionism is opposing the Zionist attitude and policy and is not the same as anti-semitism. You can be a Jew and not be for your so called biblical right to take land from others.I strongly disagree with the idea that supporting antisemitic rhetoric or promoting harmful ideologies should be excused under the guise of "free speech." While it’s true that everyone has the right to express their opinions, the nature of those opinions matters. You are overlooking the very real harm that hate speech, including antisemitism, can do to a society. This kind of rhetoric doesn’t just exist in a vacuum—it influences attitudes, fosters division, and, as we’ve seen throughout history, can lead to real-world violence and harm.
I made no mention of terrorism, but instead focused on the impact of antisemitism and how it erodes social cohesion. Antisemitism, like any form of hate, has the potential to harm communities, spread division, and perpetuate discrimination. The fact that Khalil or anyone else can express their views is one thing, but when that speech encourages hate against a group of people—whether through rhetoric or actions—it's no longer just an expression of opinion. It's a matter of public safety and moral responsibility.
Furthermore, I find it concerning that you're making an equivalence between the protest movements of the past and those of today. Yes, protest is an essential part of democracy, but there’s a distinction between dissent and promoting harmful ideologies that directly target and vilify specific groups of people. The protests you refer to in the 1960s, while significant in their historical context, did not carry the same potential for divisive hate speech that we see today.
The argument that the Trump administration overstepped its bounds by enforcing consequences for such speech ignores the broader consequences that unchecked antisemitism can have on society. Freedom of speech should never be a shield for speech that actively harms others, and that’s a key distinction that must be made when discussing issues like these. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability.
Additionally, there are laws in place that prohibit speech directly linked to terrorism. The U.S. Federal Anti-Terrorism Act and other statutes make clear that speech that incites or supports acts of terrorism is not protected under the First Amendment. This includes any rhetoric that encourages violence against others or provides aid and comfort to those seeking to harm the country or its citizens. Free speech is not an absolute right when it crosses the line into supporting terrorism or encouraging harm, and these laws exist to protect society from the very real consequences that such speech can bring.
At any rate Khalil is entitled to court proceedings despite being on a green card is due to the legal protections and due process rights afforded to all individuals in the United States, including lawful permanent residents (green card holders). While green card holders must adhere to the laws and conditions of their status, they are still entitled to certain constitutional protections under the U.S. legal system. This includes the right to a fair hearing and legal proceedings if the government seeks to remove them from the country, as it does in cases of deportation.
I trust the courts will be fiar.Racist and misogynist speech are everywhere. You think that I don't know that? I guess it just depends on who is the subject of this "hate speech" before we discuss treason. Everyone is free to hear divergent ideas without acting upon them in an unlawful matter. We suck up to Netanyahu and Israeli policy, so in the Trump universe anyone with a contrary opinion who expresses it is guilty of Treason, OK.
I disagree with all that you have said, as for the courts, we will seeI did not equate this comment to racism or misogyny, although it could certainly go hand in hand. For example, if someone protested and asked a university to sever ties with Black Americans or women, I would view that as harmful, hateful speech toward society. It promotes the idea of disregarding a race or female gender simply because of their race or female gender.
It seems you can ignore what this man was promoting. I am glad to be on the side of saying --- this man's demands were antisemitic, and have no place in any society. As I have said, racism is on the rise, I am also on the side of stopping that in its tracks. I don't condone hate or hate of another human being for any reason. It is so apparent some in our society have a much different view on that issue today. One can pick and choose who they hate.
Interesting that if one voices support for Palestinians today, it is equal in the mind of the conservative to being pro Hamas. Yet protests in terms of the Vietnam war were not viewed as support for the Viet Cong... interesting. What other types of protesters should be round up because we don't agree with the message?
These guys in Ohio recently weren't arrested..
you do realize that even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment?Really? The governor commented on an AI creation?... Is the video also a creation??
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/us/colum … index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/n … -ohio.html
Do two wrongs make a right... They should have been arrested.
Their speech is protected... Are you folks now looking for limits on free speech?
White nationalists literally call for the obliteration of Jews and it's just sort of ignored but a man of color calls for divestment in Israel and it is just SO appalling and dangerous?
You're not a First Amendment fan are you?But they won't be and I think that you know that....
Yes, I did look it up and your understanding of it is incorrect. Ever heard of Websters, Britannica? Only conservatives would take world renown reference materials and say that they are biased. The Rightwinger repeats a lie contrary to the facts long enough people will start to believe it.
So, I cant say that the Trump policies suck? That is treason according to you? The Rightwinger is introducing tyranny to the American people, one outrage at a time. But, I am not going to make it easy for Trump to put his ample rump down anywhere without discomfort. As far as I am concerned, the Palestinian is within his rights to speak his mind without jackbooted tyrants arresting him for his stated point of view.
So, we are definitely in a state of disagreement, but what else is new?Khalil faces no charges of violence, terrorism or material support for extremism. His offense appears ideological...he lead pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia. His arrest absolutely isn’t about law enforcement. It’s about politics.
The focus should be against real threats, like people funding terrorism, trafficking weapons, planning violence. Yet instead, Trump chooses to make an example of an activist and create a martyr.
That’s not national security. That’s a political spectacle.
Politically inconvenient speech shouldn't lead to arrest. What are they setting up for us?There is definitely a danger when The Trump regime can arrest anyone who speaks contrary to his policies and ideological stance. While we recognize it why are there so many that dismiss the dire implications of what is going on?
This is as close to Hitler as ever experienced in the history of the American Goverment.Are you believing that large numbers of people gathered specifically to support Hamas and complain that the US is their enemy cannot be expected to produce some funding? Some weapons, some violence planned on behalf of the terrorists?
Do you believe that such a gathering, regardless of its stated purpose, will harbor not a single terrorist even though it is there on behalf of terrorists?
Either you are extremely naïve or you are grasping at straws to maintain our enemies within our borders. Anyone, anyone at all, that supports Hamas and his actions is our enemy.
From the Constitution:
"Article III
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Please point to the words indicating that is only in time of war.
Yes, we are in disagreement. Again. Not surprising, for the liberals (you) will nearly always take the case that the United States is evil and morally and ethically wrong. And if that isn't reasonable, they (you) will change the words and meaning until it is. Again, please point to the words in the Constitution that indicate treason can only happen in wartime. Not what Websters or Britannica say; what our Constitution says, please.
As for you obnoxious center paragraph, I won't bother to reply to name calling. Such childish, sandbox behavior is not worth my time.Not surprising, for the liberals (you) will nearly always take the case that the United States is evil and morally and ethically wrong.
Because in this matter, it is....
I and anyone else are free to express their opinions, regardless of whether you or Trump like what they say. And you can bet that my attacks on Trump and Trumpism in this regard will be hard, long and frequent...."I and anyone else are free to express their opinions, regardless of whether you or Trump like what they say." Cred
Good to know you feel this way-- so many today have started to disrespect Black Americans, using foul words, I had not heard in decades---because they share your sentiment. When one points at another and says you're different, we don't like you. It breeds hate. This is what occurs when one is allowed to preach antisemitism. Our nation needs to keep our moral footing or we are lost as a people. Khalil has attempted to dictate to one of our large Universities to diversify support from Israel. His free speech is directed at not only a long time ally, but an entire religion. "If the funds are from Jews, refuse them, sort of like if you're black, you need to sit at the back of the bus."
Nearly 100 protesters were arrested Thursday following a sit-in at Trump Tower in Manhattan to demand the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist detained over the weekend by federal immigration agents.
The organization Jewish Voice for Peace livestreamed the sit-in, showing hundreds of demonstrators packed into the building's lobby. Some held signs that read "Fight Nazis not students," "Free Mahmoud free Palestine," and "You can't deport a movement."
Many people could be heard chanting "Free Mahmoud."
The group was wearing red T-shirts that said, "Stop arming Israel" and "Not in our name," the group's spokesperson Sonya Meyerson-Knox told NBC News. About 300 protesters were present, she said.
"My grandmother lost her cousins in the Holocaust. I grew up on these stories. We know what happens when authoritarian regimes begin targeting people, begin abducting them at night, separating their families and scapegoating," she said. "And we know that it’s one step from here to losing all right to protest and then further horrors happening, as we have seen too well in our history."
"We’re calling on everyone to speak up today because otherwise we won’t be able to tomorrow," she added.
Jewish Voice for Peace said it "demands the Trump administration release Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil from ICE detention."
"The detention of Mahmoud is further proof that we are on the brink of a full takeover by a repressive, authoritarian regime," the group said in a statement.Let's hope those protesters inside the Trump Tower show the same respect the J6 rioters showed....
I'm imagining Trump somewhere asking a general "can't we just shoot them in the legs?"
Chanting..."white people, one nation, Jews will not replace us"
Why were they allowed to say this?
sort of a double standard here? When white people use similar speech it's okay but brown people need to be arrested for it?These were American citizens, not guests in out Country, they broke no laws. Green card holders have laws they must follow. As of yet, there is no information if Khalil’s antisemitic rhetoric will get him deported.
In general, individuals who are in the U.S. on a visa and are found to have violated immigration laws, such as overstaying their visa, committing crimes, or having ties to terrorist groups, could face deportation. The decision to deport would be made by immigration authorities based on the individual's case and any legal proceedings.
It would be wonderful if Americans could be treated with the same laws as those here on a visa--- we could arrest many that are using antisemitic terms at these anti-Israel protests.The first amendment protections apply to green card holders. Khalil isn't a visa holder, he is a lawful permanent U.S. resident Khalil has not been charged with a crime. The Trump administration argues it can deport him on foreign policy grounds.
Khalil's attorney, Amy Greer, said in a statement his detention was illegal.
"He was chosen as an example to stifle entirely lawful dissent, in violation of the First Amendment," she said.
I would agree.
No matter what your views are on Israel & Palestine, we should all be terrified of a government incarcerating its residents for their political opinions.Green card holders (lawful permanent residents) in the U.S. are generally protected by the First Amendment, which includes freedom of speech. However, there are certain legal restrictions that could apply to them when making antisemitic statements, particularly if those statements cross into criminal conduct. Here are some key laws and regulations that might apply:
Hate Crime Laws – While speech alone is usually protected, if antisemitic statements are accompanied by threats, harassment, or incitement to violence, they could be prosecuted under federal or state hate crime statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 249).
Incitement to Violence – Speech that directly incites violence or lawless action is not protected under the First Amendment (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). If a green card holder encourages violent acts against Jewish individuals or institutions, they could face criminal charges.
Terrorism-Related Offenses – If antisemitic rhetoric is linked to terrorist threats or material support for terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339A & 2339B), it could lead to prosecution and potential deportation.
Harassment or Threats – Making direct threats or engaging in persistent harassment (e.g., doxxing, stalking) against Jewish individuals or groups can lead to criminal charges under state or federal law.
Immigration Consequences – Certain criminal offenses, including hate crimes or threats of violence, can be considered crimes of moral turpitude or aggravated felonies, which can result in deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)).
Material Support to Hate Groups – If a green card holder financially supports or collaborates with extremist organizations that promote antisemitic violence, they may face immigration consequences.
Summary:
Green card holders are generally free to express opinions, even if they are offensive or antisemitic. However, if their statements include threats, incitement to violence, or participation in hate crimes, they could face criminal charges and potential deportation.
As I said, immigration authorities would make the decision to deport based on the individual's case and any legal proceedings.
My view is that we have many Americans making statements that are far worse. Not sure one can stop hate with laws. So be it.The government has provided absolutely zero in terms of evidence that support any of the restrictions you've listed. I mean it is actually up to the complete whim of Little Marco...
Pro Palestine does not equal pro hamas.I'm not sure how you came to your view. I have not read anything about evidence whatsoever. The courts will decide this man's fate. Ot is being reported, without true evidence that he has made off remarks on social media. And he asked the University to diversify from taking funds from Israel. He has the right to be heard in a court at this point.
"I'm not sure how you came to your view"
I've read the charging document.
"he has made off remarks on social media. And he asked the University to diversify from taking funds from Israel.'
THE HORROR? They are going to need a whole lot more than thatWillowarbor wrote:
The government has provided absolutely zero in terms of evidence that support any of the restrictions you've listed. I mean it is actually up to the complete whim of Little Marco...
Pro Palestine does not equal pro hamas. Willow
My reply Sharlee --- I'm not sure how you came to your view. I have not read anything about evidence whatsoever. The courts will decide this man's fate. It is being reported, without true evidence, that he has made off remarks on social media. And he asked the University to diversify from taking funds from Israel. He has the right to be heard in a court at this point.
My context is clear, I have no idea of what evidence they might have, if any. All I have seen is what is being supported, which I have no idea if it's true or not. As I have said now about three times on this thread, it will be up to the courts to decide if this man disrespected the rules of a person living in the US on a green card. I don't play what if, or guessing games. You took half of my sentence and misrepresented my context. The complete context shares something much different than you imply--- This is what media does frequently, perhaps you picked up this ploy from media.
The full context of the sentence you cut in half--- It is being reported, without true evidence, that he has made off remarks on social media. And he asked the University to diversify from taking funds from Israel. He has the right to be heard in a court at this point. Sharlee
As one can see, when you cut a sentence in half, the context becomes very different from what I expressed. ---"he has made off remarks on social media. And he asked the University to diversify from taking funds from Israel.' Wiillow
This is from Wikipedia. I know you don't trust it, but just indulge me.
Jewish members of the Columbia University faculty protested Khalil's arrest on campus on March 10,[97] and several Jewish groups expressed concern about or opposition to his detention,[98] including J Street,[98] Jewish Voice for Peace,[98] the Jewish Council for Public Affairs,[98] Jews for Racial and Economic Justice,[99] IfNotNow,[100] and Bend the Arc.[101] These concerns were echoed by several Jewish individuals, including David Grossman,[102] Marianne Hirsch,[100] Jonathan Jacoby,[100] Erwin Chemerinsky,[103] Noah Feldman,[104] and Jill Stein.[105]
More than one of the groups said the Trump administration was using antisemitism as an excuse for an authoritarian agenda.[100] Jewish Voice for Peace organized a sit-in at Trump Tower in Manhattan on March 13 during which protesters chanted "Free Mahmoud Khalil".[106] About 300 protesters participated, and almost 100 were arrested.[107]
I believe Trump is kissing Netanyahu's ring to support his anti-Semitic agenda without caring or understanding the plight of the other side.
Here is the link to Trump's executive order which he believes gives him the right to detain and deport anti-Semitic protestors. The hook is, it's all based on how The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio judges the protest.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … -semitism/I'm not sure why my view is not being comprehended. I have not accused this man of anything. In fact, I have been clear and repeated several times that I only know what has been reported, and so far, I don't see any factual evidence even being presented. The conversation shifted to discussing the legal rights of Mr. Khalil, and I simply provided the rules that green card holders must follow to remain in the country. I also pointed out that he is being accused of antisemitism, but I did not make any accusations myself.
Thus far, the reports seem very unreliable, and I have come to the conclusion that it will be up to the courts to determine whether there is factual evidence to support the charges against him. It also appears that one of my posts was misrepresented, with the first half of my sentence omitted, changing the meaning of my paragraph entirely.
I find that, at times, some people read into my words with their own interpretations, much like the media sometimes does to fit a narrative. To make my position very clear—I have seen no solid evidence in this case, and I believe it is for the court to decide whether Mr. Khalil has violated any rules that could lead to his deportation.
Rubio does not hold the fate of this man, the courts do, unless charges are dropped. Which is possible. Mr. Khalil cannot be deported without a court hearing, unless he waives his right to one or qualifies for expedited removal under specific circumstances. Here’s how it generally works for green card holders facing deportation:"Rubio does not hold the fate of this man, the courts do, unless charges are dropped. Which is possible. Mr. Khalil cannot be deported without a court hearing, unless he waives his right to one or qualifies for expedited removal under specific circumstances. Here’s how it generally works for green card holders facing deportation:"
This is the document that gives Rubio the right to judge if he should be deported or not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/document … 555e3c.pdfThe order looks typical until the entry that the Secretary of State feels he should be removed. So, I can only now share my view. While the Secretary of State's request for removal could certainly play a role and may make the case more challenging for this individual, the final decision still rests with the immigration judge. The person will have an opportunity to present their side, and the judge will consider all factors before making a ruling.
Ultimately, the decision will be in the hands of a judge. All we can hope for is that the judge remains impartial. I’ll admit, though, given the significant divisions we see in the courts today, that’s a lot to hope for. Rubio has added weight to the charge.
"Pro Palestine does not equal pro hamas." Willow
It's true that not everyone who supports the Palestinian cause supports Hamas, BUT it's also important to recognize that the Palestinian people voted for Hamas in 2006 to lead their government in Gaza. Hamas won the parliamentary elections and later took control of Gaza by force after a conflict with the rival Fatah party.
The Palestinian people voted Hamas into power in 2006 largely due to frustration with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), which was seen as corrupt, ineffective, and too willing to compromise with Israel without achieving meaningful gains for Palestinians.
Since then, Hamas has ruled Gaza, making decisions that directly affect the Palestinian people. While some Palestinians may not agree with Hamas's actions, their leadership is the result of an electoral choice, and they continue to hold power. This is why discussions about Palestinian governance and Hamas are often intertwined, even if not every pro-Palestinian supporter aligns with Hamas's ideology or methods. The Palestinians So, while the Palestinian people as a whole have not constantly declared war, their leaders and militant factions have frequently engaged in conflict with Israel, keeping the cycle of violence going. There seems to be no way to stop them from warring with Israel, they are fighting a religious war, and history shows they will never give up unless they can reclaim the land that is the nation of Israel.And an election has not been held in almost 20 years... The current population of Gaza is almost 50% below 18 years old... You can do the math and let me know what kind of support for Hamas that equals. The generalizations of the Palestinian people and the blame that is continually placed on them is really tiresome
We have shared our views, and when you say, "The generalizations of the Palestinian people and the blame that is continually placed on them is really tiresome," in my view, it suggests a frustration with how the conflict is being discussed. However, acknowledging the role of leadership they choose, political factions, and long time historical actions is not the same as unfairly generalizing an entire population. Understanding the complexities of the situation requires recognizing all of he above.
Israel has every right to thrive and live in peace without the constant fear of being attacked by its neighbors. It seems that there may be a lack of understanding regarding the complex history of the region. The time has come to put an end to the cycle of violence once and for all. This war, though tragic, may ultimately be the catalyst needed to bring a lasting resolution to the ongoing conflict.
Oh, Sharlee, you can turn off your pilot on the gaslight, now
This comment is an excuse and an attempt to grasp for a straw that simply isn't there.
As was mentioned here, Khalil is a legal resident, does the First Amendment not apply to him just because he is dusky toned Palestinian?
I do recall Trump saying after the melee in Virginia in 2017 that "there were good people on both sides" Really? Grown, supposedly educated people walking around with torches attacking Jews specifically and racial minorities, generally?
Is that not anti-Semitic? There is a certain dishonesty and hypocrisy surrounding all of this that is pretty evident for me. So, it seems that certain groups anti-semitism is less anti-Semitic than others? In face of the facts, the very idea of deporting this man should not have even been considered by this administration.
There is no excuse to arrest anyone and if there were half this country would be in jail.
Khalil did nothing more than express his opinion, Trump does not have the authority to arrest anyone who he does not like.
bTW, I should say that if I had a nickel for each and every time I had to listen to such statements below, I would be wealthier than Musk. Talking is one thing, seeing that talk put into action is what most of US have been paying attention to. And Trump speaking out of both ends of his mouth on this anti-Semitic issue reminds me of the deceptive nature of words without corresponding action and results.
"It seems you can ignore what this man was promoting. I am glad to be on the side of saying --- this man's demands were antisemitic, and have no place in any society. As I have said, racism is on the rise, I am also on the side of stopping that in its tracks. I don't condone hate or hate of another human being for any reason. It is so apparent some in our society have a much different view on that issue today. One can pick and choose who they hate."Republicans are terrified of anything that doesn't fit within their MAGA doctrine, which is why they're actively trying to suppress speech. It's more un-American than anything pro-Palestine protesters said. In Trump's world, disagreeing with MAGA is un-American... He's got them making anti-free speech arguments now! What's next?
But in terms of this forum, remember not to long ago how they were all "free speech absolutists" like Musk? The flip-flopping and pretzel bending these folks do to stay aligned with Trump is just incredible."Khalil did nothing more than express his opinion"
I must have misunderstood this from the very beginning. I was sure he was the one responsible for organizing the protest; for collecting hundreds or thousands of people to support Hamas and the Palestinians in general. Thousands of people getting together to discuss how to perform more terrorist events, where to get the materials to do it, etc.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that the man DID organize and create the protest. Not just "express his opinion" as you say. Why would you say such a thing when it is so obviously false?I believe that that Palestinians have a just cause in their pursuit of fairness in this matter.
Why don't you tell me, who organized the anti-Semitic Virginia melee and why wasn't their ringleaders held to the same standard?
How many people were organized in the "Tea Party" movement, contrary to Obama's policies.Who was the "ringleader" behind that?
Open up your civic primer, Wilderness, it is not against the law to influence and advocate on the behalf of others or to engage in peaceful protest, regardless of any edit from King Trump.
So, it is ok to pardon the ruffians and thugs involved in the destructive January 6, 2021 attack on the capital, while we castigate a fellow for non violence speech? Frankly, I don't care about Trump hypocritical views, people should always be able speak their minds. I positively loathe the man, that is my view. I support fairness for the Palestinian cause. So, is it now against the law in the Trump universe to be concerned about the information people might receive from a variety of sources or are you just trying to silence any Trump dissenting voice?
You're "pretty sure"?
Conservative, Trumpian thought is simply incorrigible.
"It seems you can ignore what this man was promoting. I am glad to be on the side of saying --- this man's demands were antisemitic, and have no place in any society. As I have said, racism is on the rise, I am also on the side of stopping that in its tracks. I don't condone hate or hate of another human being for any reason. It is so apparent some in our society have a much different view on that issue today. One can pick and choose who they hate." Sharlee
My statement shares my sentiments. Take it or leave it. I don't care hate like a badge, to heavy a cost to carry hate.
"As was mentioned here, Khalil is a legal resident, does the First Amendment not apply to him just because he is dusky toned Palestinian?" Cred
To look closer into your statement, here are the rules a green card holder is expected to abide by.
Green card holders (lawful permanent residents) must follow several rules to maintain their status. Violating these rules can lead to the loss of permanent residency and possible deportation. Here are the key rules: Take special note to number 2...
1. Obeying All U.S. Laws
Green card holders must follow federal, state, and local laws.
Committing crimes such as drug offenses, fraud, violent crimes, or terrorism-related activities can lead to deportation.
2. No Involvement in Hate Crimes or Extremism
Engaging in acts of antisemitism, hate speech, or hate crimes can be considered a violation, especially if it involves violence, threats, or organized extremist activity.
The U.S. government takes hate-based crimes and actions seriously, and participation in extremist groups can be grounds for removal.
3. Not Voting in Federal Elections
Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.
Voting in a federal election as a green card holder is a deportable offense.
4. Maintaining Continuous Residence in the U.S
.
Green card holders should not stay outside the U.S. for more than 6 months at a time.
Staying outside the U.S. for over a year without a reentry permit may be considered abandonment of residency.
5. Not Claiming to Be a U.S. Citizen
Misrepresenting oneself as a U.S. citizen on official documents (such as job applications or voter registration) can lead to losing permanent residency.
6. Filing Taxes
Green card holders must file U.S. tax returns and report all worldwide income to the IRS.
Failure to do so could lead to issues with residency status.
7. Registering for Selective Service (if required)
Male green card holders aged 18 to 25 must register for the U.S. Selective Service (military draft system).
Not registering can affect future applications for citizenship.
8. Carrying Proof of Residency
Green card holders must carry their valid green card at all times and renew it before expiration.
9. Reporting Address Changes change of address must be reported to USCIS within 10 days of moving.
10. No Immigration Fraud or False Claims
Providing false information on immigration applications or engaging in marriage fraud (fake marriages for green cards) can lead to deportation.
AS I stated several times in this ongoing conversation--- it will be up to the courts to decide if this man in any respect disrespected number 2. Not up to me, or you... I will take the court's decision as the last word.But where’s the evidence that Khalil is a threat? Labeling him, vaguely and without evidence, as some sort of terrorist is deeply dangerous. If he’s done something illegal, charge him with a crime and give him his day in court. Without that, it’s impossible not to see the arrest as an attack on free speech.
Related Discussions
- 399
All Things Israel and Palestine
by Scott Belford 3 months ago
First, let me say that I support Israel's right to exist, always have and always will. I also support Palestine's right to exist as well.Let me also say that the Donald Trump of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is trying to destroy everything that Israel stands for. His one-state solution...
- 9
Treason "Death To America"
by Sharlee 11 months ago
Vidio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss4vf_njbjc"Death to America" chants in Dearborn echo across social media, draw local "Dearborn — Video that captured chants of "death to America" and "death to Israel" by some attendees of a Dearborn rally on Friday...
- 41
When does intentionally discrediting the executive branch rise to the level of t
by Clive Donegal 12 years ago
When does intentionally discrediting the executive branch rise to the level of treason?When the U.S. president is constantly defending himself and his administration against unrelenting attacks by a political faction amount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy?Rivals once maintained a veneer of...
- 55
Shut Down OUR Government? Time to Prosecute Republicans for Treason?
by Alternative Prime 9 years ago
Prosecuting malicious conservative republican politicians in congress for attempting to Shut Down OUR Tax-Payer-Funded United States Government is long over due ~ If there are no consequences for their irrationally reckless behavior to intentionally harm OUR country, the PEOPLE, OUR Economy, OUR...
- 12
Biden Claims He Will Stop Sending Bombs And Artillery To Israel
by Sharlee 11 months ago
Biden announced on Wednesday that he would cease sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it initiated a significant military invasion into the southern Gaza city of Rafah. This statement follows media reports that Israeli forces seemed prepared to escalate operations in the densely...
- 31
Shocking: Mueller Nails Trump With Direct Link To Russian Espionage
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
We all watched in utter astonishment and disgust when during the presidential campaign Mr. Trump betrayed the USA again when he maniacally and brazenly used our national airwaves to call on Russia, our arch enemy to break into our sovereign private property with the intent to steal said property...