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  Maybe that is part of the reason his Green Card was revoked?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 His citizenship was revoked without due process by a political figure exercising a decades-old statute that has remained unused in this manner.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]

33 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. 

That's what being contested in court, and we'll find out what the judge thinks soon.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

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. 

That's what being contested in court, and we'll find out what the judge thinks soon.

Read the OP and listen to the statements then, because I agree, you know nothing about the case that this is all about yet are posting as if you do and again nothing to do with first amendment, that's pure deflection.

[6Hugh_Janus9]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

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?

I have succinctly laid out the current legal process, but it appears you are unwilling to understand it. His case is only being heard in court because his lawyer had to request a hold by a NY judge for additional hearings. Once again, this is not standard. Everyone is expected to due process in criminal matters, even green card holders. Having to fight to get a proper hearing at all is not procedural.

 

I question how established a law is if this is the first instance of it being utilized. Laws can be wrong and vague; interpretation is needed from a judicial body to understand the true implications and use of many. This decades-old statue is one of them. Maybe re-read the post you replied to again to see why this might require further interpretation, as it clearly violates the rights offered by the government. What good would a First Amendment be if a statute from the 1700s could completely disregard it?

 

I won't bother replying to your last question as it is irrelevant. Khalil deserves the legal process, as he was granted permanent residency. If the police acquired probable cause and got a warrant, arrested and charged Khalil, was given due process in immigration law courts, and found guilty, then you can deport his terrorist ass. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

I have succinctly laid out the current legal process, but it appears you are unwilling to understand it. His case is only being heard in court because his lawyer had to request a hold by a NY judge for additional hearings. Once again, this is not standard. Everyone is expected to due process in criminal matters, even green card holders. Having to fight to get a proper hearing at all is not procedural.

 

I question how established a law is if this is the first instance of it being utilized. Laws can be wrong and vague; interpretation is needed from a judicial body to understand the true implications and use of many. This decades-old statue is one of them. Maybe re-read the post you replied to again to see why this might require further interpretation, as it clearly violates the rights offered by the government. What good would a First Amendment be if a statute from the 1700s could completely disregard it?

 

I won't bother replying to your last question as it is irrelevant. Khalil deserves the legal process, as he was granted permanent residency. If the police acquired probable cause and got a warrant, arrested and charged Khalil, was given due process in immigration law courts, and found guilty, then you can deport his terrorist ass. 

 Laws can be wrong and vague;

 

Yet they are still the law and the case has already been laid out in the topic before you posted 

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Read the OP and listen to the statements then, because I agree, you know nothing about the case that this is all about yet are posting as if you do and again nothing to do with first amendment, that's pure deflection.

Read my posts. All of them are based on what I've seen on TV (CNN) and read elsewhere online. Whether any of that, including what is written in this forum, is true, I don't really know. I do believe his case is pending in court and expect we'll see the results of that soon. 

[thesetat]

1 hour 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. 

Not if they are not an american citizen.. I do not think the constitution or amendments were created for non-american citizens. 

[WDSmart]

Just now, thesetat said:

Not if they are not an american citizen.. I do not think the constitution or amendments were created for non-american citizens. 

Again, I'm not a legal expert, but it is my understanding that our Constitution applies to everyone who is in the US legally, including permanent residents (Green Card), visa holders, and even refugees (those who entered illegally fleeing violence).

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Read my posts. All of them are based on what I've seen on TV (CNN) and read elsewhere online. Whether any of that, including what is written in this forum, is true, I don't really know. I do believe his case is pending in court and expect we'll see the results of that soon. 

No need to read your posts again, even you are admitting you know little about the case in the OP which you obviously have not read.

[thesetat]

6 minutes ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

I have succinctly laid out the current legal process, but it appears you are unwilling to understand it. His case is only being heard in court because his lawyer had to request a hold by a NY judge for additional hearings. Once again, this is not standard. Everyone is expected to due process in criminal matters, even green card holders. Having to fight to get a proper hearing at all is not procedural.

 

I question how established a law is if this is the first instance of it being utilized. Laws can be wrong and vague; interpretation is needed from a judicial body to understand the true implications and use of many. This decades-old statue is one of them. Maybe re-read the post you replied to again to see why this might require further interpretation, as it clearly violates the rights offered by the government. What good would a First Amendment be if a statute from the 1700s could completely disregard it?

 

I won't bother replying to your last question as it is irrelevant. Khalil deserves the legal process, as he was granted permanent residency. If the police acquired probable cause and got a warrant, arrested and charged Khalil, was given due process in immigration law courts, and found guilty, then you can deport his terrorist ass. 

From what I understand. His green card was issued based on his Visa then marriage. The argument is now that he did not state his affiliation or support with the Hamas terrorist group during his time with a visa hence making the green card invalid. 

[6Hugh_Janus9]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 Laws can be wrong and vague;

 

Yet they are still the law and the case has already been laid out in the topic before you posted 

Ultimately, many laws were broken under this novel use of an old statute. One is in the Bill of Rights and is granted to green card holders. You are speaking from someone without a proper perspective of US laws, and it shows. Many laws exist that are completely unenforceable, such as the bans on atheist politicians in seven US states. Just because a law is on the record does not mean it holds any power. 

[thesetat]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Again, I'm not a legal expert, but it is my understanding that our Constitution applies to everyone who is in the US legally, including permanent residents (Green Card), visa holders, and even refugees (those who entered illegally fleeing violence).

You are correct.. I withdraw my initial comment

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

Ultimately, many laws were broken under this novel use of an old statute. One is in the Bill of Rights and is granted to green card holders. You are speaking from someone without a proper perspective of US laws, and it shows. Many laws exist that are completely unenforceable, such as the bans on atheist politicians in seven US states. Just because a law is on the record does not mean it holds any power. 

Can you go ahead and list with links the many laws that were broken along with links to them regarding this particular case and why? 

 

How do they refute the immigration laws of 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227  ?

[6Hugh_Janus9]

8 hours ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

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.

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Can you go ahead and list with links the many laws that were broken along with links to them regarding this particular case and why? 

I already did but I quoted it so you can read it again.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

 

I already did but I quoted it so you can read it again.

 

Again...........

 

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Can you go ahead and list with links the many laws that were broken along with links to them regarding this particular case and why? 

 

How do they refute the immigration laws of 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227  ?

 

[6Hugh_Janus9]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

 

Again...........

 

 

Are you seriously asking me to link you to the Bill of Rights? It's not my job to explain the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, both of which were violated in this case. If you can't see the connections, then I would rather believe you are being dishonest than ignorant. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, 6Hugh_Janus9 said:

Are you seriously asking me to link you to the Bill of Rights? It's not my job to explain the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, both of which were violated in this case. If you can't see the connections, then I would rather believe you are being dishonest than ignorant. 

I am certainly asking you to justify all your claims with the relevant pieces of evidence. Factual claims  need links as per forum rules

[Bkk Brian]

This is a genuine Gazan refugee who went the to US. He had many of his family killed in Gaza and went through a stage of taking part in demonstrations. Yes he is a green card holder and a Senior Fellow @AtlanticCouncil now.

 

This is how a responsible individual acts who once a blinded “pro-Palestine activist"

 

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib

I was once a blinded “pro-Palestine activist:” As a former asylum seeker now United States citizen, I had arrived here right as Hamas was taking control of the Gaza Strip, and the horrendous cycle of useless wars between the terror group and Israel was starting. When I was a young man, I attended pro-Palestine demonstrations while going through the immigration process, feeling a sense of community, even excitement that proliferated among activists and those who wanted to show solidarity and pursue justice in Palestine. Very quickly, however, I realized the problem with a lot of these demonstrations and actions while registering the fact that I am privileged to be an immigrant to the US, meaning that I should not be part of disruptive, detrimental, and harmful actions, which really had nothing to do with Palestinians rights to safety, freedom, and independence.

When I observed anti-American or anti-Western behavior and rhetoric, I realized that this was not a context I wanted to be part of as someone who relished the vast potential of life in the United States. I can disagree all I want with US foreign policy and hold beliefs that are organically and authentically my own, informed by my lived experience, background, and aspirations. But at the end of the day, I was a stateless man from Gaza seeking to establish a new life, and I always remembered the value of being an American and how that would actually allow me to support the Palestinian people in a pragmatic, practical manner.

Over several years, I felt increasingly tokenized by elements of the “pro-Palestine” movement who wanted to use me as a Gazan voice but did not want to hear any of my critiques of Hamas, despite the fact that large swaths of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip loathe the organization. I remember vividly when I asked why we can’t bring an American flag to a “pro-Palestine” demonstration when the “pro-Israel” community does that on a regular basis, given that we are all Americans, or in my case, an American in the making. Listening to the avalanche of anti-American voices who did not for a second tolerate any space for diverse perspectives under the umbrella of their activism and were descending into overt support for a foreign terror organization left me heartbroken, though it was incredibly clear I could never be part of such hooliganism.

My point is that though it may be unfair, there is an extra burden on those who immigrate to this country and become citizens to appreciate the duties and responsibilities which come with the privileges of being part of this nation, even when one wants to express their firmly held views about a social or political issue. Far-left, theoretical academic, and extremist points of view will never serve those who escape the perils of life in troubled Middle Eastern countries, especially those of Palestinian heritage, as they embark on a journey to live in the United States. Individual responsibility and accountability are the only things that can ensure a pathway toward progress, self-fulfillment, and prosperity.

I do not wish ill or pain upon anyone, including those who have harmed me, regularly attacked me, or worked overtime to suppress my voice and ability to share a divergent pro-Palestinian perspective centered around radical pragmatism, peace, and coexistence as courageous evolutions that are necessary to protect Palestinian lives. I feel sorry for those who regularly attack me and call me “a Zionist, traitor, sell-out, spy, etc.” because they are inherently limited and will never progress beyond their entrenched narratives. But instead of doubling down on extremist, pro-Hamas, pro-violence, anti-Western, vile speech and rhetoric, perhaps it is time to finally embrace a different pathway forward.

Pro-Palestine activism and advocacy are in desperate need of being reimagined, rejuvenated, and reconstituted as much more than merely anti-Israel. Amidst the immense uncertainty and chaos on numerous fronts, and although First Amendment protections are fundamental to what makes the United States free and open, it is still incumbent on each of us to do some soul-searching and introspection to prevent unnecessary hardships and consequences.

My message to “pro-Palestine” activists and demonstrators in the United States: stop supporting Hamas and the armed resistance narrative; realize the futility and uselessness of your precious life being wasted in what you are doing; acknowledge that academic theory and ivory tower perspectives are incredibly irrelevant and useless to improve Palestinians’ lives; Israel and Jewish-Israelis are here to stay and will always have to be part of the solution even if you don’t like Zionism and how the country was formed; be a good custodian of the cause and privilege you behold; understand that living in the United States is an incredible opportunity; resist the temptation to be part of far-left, communist, extremist, Islamist or any other moronic pro-terror ideologies and organizations; and appreciate that your actions will have consequences and implications that may reverberate far beyond the current moment – think, choose, speak and act accordingly!