Democrats Face Backlash for Supporting Arrested Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

[6Hugh_Janus9]

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

Mahmoud Khalil has received the due process to which a Green Card holder is entitled.  It's not the same due process which he, or any other resident in the U.S., would receive if they were facing criminal charges.  Due process is not identical in every situation.  Khalil is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge on March 27.

 

Here is a screen shot of the Notice to Appear that Khalil was given upon arrest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf

 

 

One curious aspect of the case is that Khalil is listed as a citizen of Algeria!  According to numerous press reports, Khalil was born and raised in Syria.  Hs parrents were Palestinian refugees.  Under Syrian law, the children of Palestinians born in Syria aren't considered citizens of Syria.  Khalil is now 30 years old.  He studied at a university in Lebanon, then worked for a Syrian-American NGO.  In 2018 he become a local employee of the British embassy in Beirut and worked there until 2022, when he entered the U.S. to study at Columbia.

 

How and when did he become an Algerian citizen???  Maybe that is part of the reason his Green Card was revoked?

This process is practically unheard of, and it's dismissive to pass it off as just usual practice.

 

1. Normally, a warrant would have to be issued through a judge with presented probable cause, leading to initial arrest. 

2. The charges would be disputed during a hearing with an immigration judge, and if deemed guilty to the charges, they could order to revoke his green card.

3. With no green card, he would then be deported.

 

In this scenario, there is NO warrant, NO charges, and NO immigration judge hearing regarding his charges. His citizenship was revoked without due process by a political figure exercising a decades-old statute that has remained unused in this manner. There will be no due process during the upcoming immigration hearing; the judge does not issue green cards, they only handle charges and can request to revoke citizenship (which was already done). Khalil will just be deported because he has no permanent residency after it was removed *without* due process.

 

It is disingenuous to pass this off as normal, as this case is the first of its kind. It is even more disingenuous to say that he has received due process because he hasn't. 

[thesetat]

21 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s not about the guy that got arrested it’s about freedom of speech.they are using his political speech as an excuse to deport him no more no less.

I seriously doubt you care about Freedom of Speech in this matter. You use any topic to complain about Trump. American citizens are granted the rights under the amendment to give them freedom of speech. This man is not an American citizens and does not have this right. He is a foreigner and must adhere to the rules of his stay as a foreigner. Just like you do in Thailand. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

This process is practically unheard of, and it's dismissive to pass it off as just usual practice.

 

1. Normally, a warrant would have to be issued through a judge with presented probable cause, leading to initial arrest. 

2. The charges would be disputed during a hearing with an immigration judge, and if deemed guilty to the charges, they could order to revoke his green card.

3. With no green card, he would then be deported.

 

In this scenario, there is NO warrant, NO charges, and NO immigration judge hearing regarding his charges. His citizenship was revoked without due process by a political figure exercising a decades-old statute that has remained unused in this manner. There will be no due process during the upcoming immigration hearing; the judge does not issue green cards, they only handle charges and can request to revoke citizenship (which was already done). Khalil will just be deported because he has no permanent residency after it was removed *without* due process.

 

It is disingenuous to pass this off as normal, as this case is the first of its kind. It is even more disingenuous to say that he has received due process because he hasn't. 

His case is being heard now in the courts, you are talking nonsense and arguing against established US immigration law and the numerous posts outlining the evidence and procedure already in this topic.

 

Do you put this much effort into demanding the release of the US hostage still being held by Hamas in the terror tunnels, the same terrorists that Khalil supports?

[Eloquent pilgrim]

16 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I do not support arresting, and especially deporting, any US citizen or legal resident because they were engaging in their right to free speech.

 

 

Left wing shallow thinker tries to moralise to everyone else about the “rights” of an antisemite Hamas activist … lovely

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

 

I see that subsequent to having $400 million of funding removed for failing to fight antisemitism on campus, Columbia University are finally taking some action, and have suspended and expelled dozens of students who participated in occupying Hamilton Hall; sad that it needed the threat of funding removal before the illiberal woke board sprung into action, but at least something is now happening.

 

 

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

Left wing shallow thinker tries to moralise to everyone else about the “rights” of an antisemite Hamas activist … lovely

 

 

Yes, an "antisemite Hamas activist," and even a racist, sexist, neo-Nazi, xenophobe, is supposed to have the right to free speech in the USA. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, an "antisemite Hamas activist," and even a racist, sexist, neo-Nazi, xenophobe, is supposed to have the right to free speech in the USA. 

Wrong, when you are actively supporting a designated terrorist group and actively spewing that speech in private buildings that you have taken over. You fail again

[WDSmart]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, an "antisemite Hamas activist," and even a racist, sexist, neo-Nazi, xenophobe, is supposed to have the right to free speech in the USA. 

Wrong, when you are actively supporting a designated terrorist group and actively spewing that speech in private buildings that you have taken over. You fail again

No, I am not wrong. Reread my comment above.

The 1st Amendment does not restrict your freedom of speech regarding "terrorist" groups, and by now, I think many people are realizing that the IDF is also a "terrorist" group.  Also, my comment says nothing about "private buildings." 

You overstate and post falsehoods yet again... 🥹

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I am not wrong. Reread my comment above.

The 1st Amendment does not restrict your freedom of speech regarding "terrorist" groups, and by now, I think many people are realizing that the IDF is also a "terrorist" group.  Also, my comment says nothing about "private buildings." 

You overstate and post falsehoods yet again... 🥹

The law regarding this individual and again your showing your ignorance to the topic and the OP

 

"5. ⁠Separately, though no crime of “material” support of terrorism (or any other crime) is legally necessary to deport an alien, his distribution of pamphlets with Hamas iconography and language is “material” support (yes, producing and distributing documents is considered material support — look it up — just like other forms of “material” support like direct financial assistance). "

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

The law regarding this individual and again your showing your ignorance to the topic and the OP

 

"5. ⁠Separately, though no crime of “material” support of terrorism (or any other crime) is legally necessary to deport an alien, his distribution of pamphlets with Hamas iconography and language is “material” support (yes, producing and distributing documents is considered material support — look it up — just like other forms of “material” support like direct financial assistance). "

Yes, and that action has been challenged in court, and a ruling is pending. We'll have to wait to see what happens soon. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, and that action has been challenged in court, and a ruling is pending. We'll have to wait to see what happens soon. 

Yes you were very wrong

 

Its all on video too.

 

It can be challenged but there is more than enough evidence.

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes you were very wrong

 

Its all on video too.

 

It can be challenged but there is more than enough evidence.

We'll have to wait and see. And, no matter what the judge rules, I don't consider speaking out for or passing out fliers that support any group of any kind to be "material support" and a violation of the First Amendment. Especially in this case, which is obviously extreme right-wing (aka Trump) politically motivated. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

We'll have to wait and see. And, no matter what the judge rules, I don't consider speaking out for or passing out fliers that support any group of any kind to be "material support" and a violation of the First Amendment. Especially in this case, which is obviously extreme right-wing (aka Trump) politically motivated. 

Nothing to do with first amendment Its basic immigration law. 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227  again showing just how little you know about this case 

 

 

[WDSmart]

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nothing to do with first amendment Its basic immigration law. 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227  again showing just how little you know about this case 

 

 

I don't know a lot about all the details of this case, and I am not a legal expert. However, I do know that a permanent resident (Green Card) has First Amendment rights. Actually, I think anyone in the USA, even on a visa, has those. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by any other federal or state laws. So, again, IMO, passing out flyers should be protected as "free speech" unless they are an incitment to do something illegal.