Democrats Face Backlash for Supporting Arrested Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Charge them and follow due process. 

What makes you think they're not? Even the UNI is finally taking some action

 

Columbia suspends and expels pro-Palestinian students who occupied building

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rz4eqx4g7o

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

Here's the Hamas pamphlet that Khalil among others passed out  during the takeover of a building at Bernhard College.  Note that it's not a pamphlet that's merely ABOUT Hamas, but a pamphlet that was issued BY Hamas.  It bears the Hamas emblem and the words, "Hamas Media Office."   It's reasonable to believe that distributing official Hamas publications amounts to support of a terrorist group.

 

 

Link to the full pamphlet:  https://www.palestinechronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PDF.pdf

Background story from the Hamas perspective:  https://www.palestinechronicle.com/hamas-document-reveals-why-we-we-carried-out-al-aqsa-flood-operation-summary-pdf/

Indeed, he was distributing this since last year. He's also been reported separately to the FBI

 

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

32 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Except none of that is illegal or a threat to the US.

 

Denying any student the right to safely attend a class at a University, is illegal in the US; even if you didn’t know the law, I would have thought that simple logic would have helped you.

 

 

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

10 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Charge them and follow due process. 

 

   Just revoke their Visas and send them home, just like Thailand does .

[Evil Penevil]

9 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Charge them and follow due process. 

 

Maybe you should read this document: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-forceful-and-unprecedented-steps-to-combat-anti-semitism/

 

One reason  for Trump's  action is the failure of Columbia and other universities to protect Jewish students.  From Trump's Executive Order:

"Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities."

 

This press release is also relevant:

 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment

Letters warn of potential enforcement actions if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-sends-letters-60-universities-under-investigation-antisemitic-discrimination-and-harassment

 

It looks like something is being done against antisemitism.

[Evil Penevil]

For those of you who want to know what Mahmoud Khalil has been up to while a student at Columbia, there's an extensive list here:

https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil

[Stewart12]

On 3/14/2025 at 8:18 AM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

Not charged as of yet; however, Mahmoud Khalil is a pro-Hamas activist, and as such, is a serious threat to the national security of the US; if you don’t think that is a good enough reason for him to be deported, then you are part of the problem.

 

Supporting and enabling terrorist sympathisers and antisemites is the reason that the Democrats were flushed down the gurgler at the recent election, something it seems you have failed to grasp.

 

 

 

 

He hasn't actually been accused of ANY crimes at all. In the U.S., we do not punish people based on unproven accusations or political affiliations, due process matters. He is a green card holder, and entitled to those protections.

 

Being pro-Palestinian is not the same as being pro-Hamas. Conflating the two is both intellectually dishonest and prejudicial, as it assumes that all support for Palestinian rights is support for a designated terrorist organization. That kind of misrepresentation has been used historically to silence legitimate political discourse and dismiss the concerns of an entire people. If the standard for 'national security threats' is simply holding a particular political view, then you are advocating for authoritarianism, not democracy.

If he does get charged with a crime, or is proven to be a supporter of Hamas, then by all means arrest him, charge him, and deport.
 

[300sd]

3 hours ago, suzannegoh said:

I'd like to understand that too.  In the US law, is there any distinction between the two?

Yes!

[coolcarer]

44 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

 

He hasn't actually been accused of ANY crimes at all. In the U.S., we do not punish people based on unproven accusations or political affiliations, due process matters. He is a green card holder, and entitled to those protections.

 

Being pro-Palestinian is not the same as being pro-Hamas. Conflating the two is both intellectually dishonest and prejudicial, as it assumes that all support for Palestinian rights is support for a designated terrorist organization. That kind of misrepresentation has been used historically to silence legitimate political discourse and dismiss the concerns of an entire people. If the standard for 'national security threats' is simply holding a particular political view, then you are advocating for authoritarianism, not democracy.

If he does get charged with a crime, or is proven to be a supporter of Hamas, then by all means arrest him, charge him, and deport.
 

Yawn. Another who didn’t get past reading the topic article

[Evil Penevil]

 

55 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

 

He hasn't actually been accused of ANY crimes at all. In the U.S., we do not punish people based on unproven accusations or political affiliations, due process matters. He is a green card holder, and entitled to those protections.

 You don't seem to realize that revocation of a Green Card or a student visa is an administrative procedure, not a criminal case.  A visa or Green card holder doesn't have to be  convicted of a crime.  Should the holder violate the terms under which the visa or Green Card was granted, it can be revoked by the State Department or Department of Homeland Security without a criminal court proceeding.  Accusations don't have to be proven in a court of law and affiliation with a terrorist group is a legitimate reason for deportation.

 

 BMs who sympathize with Mahmoud Khalil seem to believe he had his Green Card revoked and is facing deportation because he gave a speech or took part in a demonstration.  That's totally wrong.  He did a whole lot more than that, even if he hasn't been charged with a crime.

 

55 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

If he does get charged with a crime, or is proven to be a supporter of Hamas, then by all means arrest him, charge him, and deport.

 

I guess you missed the post I made that immediately preceded yours. The link  in it gave  numerous examples of his support  for Hamas.        https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil   There's no doubt he is a supporter of Hamas.  

[Social Media]

A post with numerous claims that require credible sources has been removed. 

 

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, suzannegoh said:

I'd like to understand that too.  In the US law, is there any distinction between the two?

Hate speech is a made-up term. 

 

Speech is speech and, and unless one is inciting a riot or whatnot, it is protected. In the US one is free to hate, and free to spew hatful speech in non-restricted areas. 

 

Actions are actions and are not protected. Spewing hate in someone else's face, or threatening them, or blocking sidewalks, or setting up illegal encampments, or protesting/speaking in unauthorized areas, are all actions, and are all illegal. 

[Stewart12]

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 You don't seem to realize that revocation of a Green Card or a student visa is an administrative procedure, not a criminal case.  A visa or Green card holder doesn't have to be  convicted of a crime.  Should the holder violate the terms under which the visa or Green Card was granted, it can be revoked by the State Department or Department of Homeland Security without a criminal court proceeding.  Accusations don't have to be proven in a court of law and affiliation with a terrorist group is a legitimate reason for deportation.

 

 BMs who sympathize with Mahmoud Khalil seem to believe he had his Green Card revoked and is facing deportation because he gave a speech or took part in a demonstration.  That's totally wrong.  He did a whole lot more than that, even if he hasn't been charged with a crime.

 

 

I guess you missed the post I made that immediately preceded yours. The link  in it gave  numerous examples of his support  for Hamas.        https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil   There's no doubt he is a supporter of Hamas.  

Reposted with links, as requested.
 

No, I didn’t miss it, I didn’t think it was relevant. It’s like taking "Lawyers for Israel" (a real lobby group in the UK) or AIPAC’s word at face value. Biased sources will give anyone what they want to hear. The same is true for those on the other side - I'm sure you'd be the first to say 'Hamas health ministry are massaging the death figures" because it's a biased source, right? Same is true for your link..

Your legal analysis is also seriously flawed. Here are the facts:
 

Green Card Revocation Requires a Legal Process

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot simply revoke a Green Card without initiating removal (deportation) proceedings in immigration court before an immigration judge (unless the person voluntarily relinquishes their status).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a

Unlike non-immigrant visas, which can often be revoked more easily, lawful permanent residency carries strong legal protections under U.S. law.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/removal-proceedings

The government must present specific legal grounds for removal, and the individual has the right to challenge the decision, seek waivers, and appeal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1240.8

In removal proceedings, the burden of proof is generally on the government to show that the LPR has committed an offense that warrants deportation, in other words, proof is required. Accusations alone are not enough. Even in cases of suspected terrorism ties, the government typically relies on classified intelligence, which may be challenged in court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

The State Department does not have the authority to revoke a Green Card. It oversees visa issuance but not permanent residency revocation. That falls under DHS and immigration courts. The claim that DHS can revoke an LPR’s status administratively without legal proceedings is misleading.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visa-vs-status.html
 

A Green Card Holder Can Be Deported For:

Committing certain crimes (e.g., aggravated felonies, drug offenses, crimes of moral turpitude).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_2

Engaging in terrorism-related activities (which is broadly defined).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#a_3_B

Fraud in obtaining the Green Card.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_1_A

Abandoning permanent residency.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_13_C

However, each of these requires evidence, legal review, and due process.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a

Now, if the government have some evidence of him being a terrorist supporter, then please do reveal it and have him kicked out.

[oxo1947]

 

Hate what he is saying....(preaching)  but-----Vance has just come back from Europe telling them all they should allow more free speech..................

[Yellowtail]

Just now, oxo1947 said:

 

Hate what he is saying....(preaching)  but-----Vance has just come back from Europe telling them all they should allow more free speech..................

I do not think you understand what free speech means, at least in the USA. 

[Bkk Brian]

16 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

Reposted with links, as requested.
 

No, I didn’t miss it, I didn’t think it was relevant. It’s like taking "Lawyers for Israel" (a real lobby group in the UK) or AIPAC’s word at face value. Biased sources will give anyone what they want to hear. The same is true for those on the other side - I'm sure you'd be the first to say 'Hamas health ministry are massaging the death figures" because it's a biased source, right? Same is true for your link..

Your legal analysis is also seriously flawed. Here are the facts:
 

Green Card Revocation Requires a Legal Process

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot simply revoke a Green Card without initiating removal (deportation) proceedings in immigration court before an immigration judge (unless the person voluntarily relinquishes their status).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a

Unlike non-immigrant visas, which can often be revoked more easily, lawful permanent residency carries strong legal protections under U.S. law.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/removal-proceedings

The government must present specific legal grounds for removal, and the individual has the right to challenge the decision, seek waivers, and appeal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1240.8

In removal proceedings, the burden of proof is generally on the government to show that the LPR has committed an offense that warrants deportation, in other words, proof is required. Accusations alone are not enough. Even in cases of suspected terrorism ties, the government typically relies on classified intelligence, which may be challenged in court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

The State Department does not have the authority to revoke a Green Card. It oversees visa issuance but not permanent residency revocation. That falls under DHS and immigration courts. The claim that DHS can revoke an LPR’s status administratively without legal proceedings is misleading.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visa-vs-status.html
 

A Green Card Holder Can Be Deported For:

Committing certain crimes (e.g., aggravated felonies, drug offenses, crimes of moral turpitude).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_2

Engaging in terrorism-related activities (which is broadly defined).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#a_3_B

Fraud in obtaining the Green Card.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_1_A

Abandoning permanent residency.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101#a_13_C

However, each of these requires evidence, legal review, and due process.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a

Now, if the government have some evidence of him being a terrorist supporter, then please do reveal it and have him kicked out.

Yes they have evidence and that evidence is already very clearly linked to in this thread, he is also currently going through due process having been arrested and now at trial.

 

(support of a terrorist organization)

 

Your false equivalence on Hamas and Lawyers for Israel or AIPAC’s is all one needs to know about your extreme bias

 

 

 

you need to read the OP and the rest of the posts this has already been covered multiple times

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes they have evidence and that evidence is already very clearly linked to in this thread, he is also currently going through due process having been arrested and now at trial.

 

(support of a terrorist organization)

 

Your false equivalence on Hamas and Lawyers for Israel or AIPAC’s is all one needs to know about your extreme bias

 

 

 

you need to read the OP and the rest of the posts this has already been covered multiple times

The Trump-haters all want to pretend it's a "free speech" issue. It is not. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

The Trump-haters all want to pretend it's a "free speech" issue. It is not. 

Exactly, its the only diversion they have and will cling onto it for dear life.

[Stewart12]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes they have evidence and that evidence is already very clearly linked to in this thread, he is also currently going through due process having been arrested and now at trial.

 

(support of a terrorist organization)

 

Your false equivalence on Hamas and Lawyers for Israel or AIPAC’s is all one needs to know about your extreme bias

 

 

 

you need to read the OP and the rest of the posts this has already been covered multiple times

 

No evidence has been shown by a credible source - hence it's deletion my friend.

 

If the guy is a terrorist, then ship him out. But he needs a fair trial, because that is what the law requires.

[Bkk Brian]

20 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

 

No evidence has been shown by a credible source - hence it's deletion my friend.

 

If the guy is a terrorist, then ship him out. But he needs a fair trial, because that is what the law requires.

Nobody claimed he's a terrorist. There you go again with your false equivalence and he is going through a trial, with a lawyer and due process, more strawman from you.

 

The only deletion here is your attempt at misinformation. 

[Stewart12]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The Trump-haters all want to pretend it's a "free speech" issue. It is not. 

 

 

 

It's not about hating Trump, supporting Israel or Palestinians. It is about free speach and due process.

 

Thankfully, the chap has a lawyer.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Stewart12 said:

 

It's not about hating Trump, supporting Israel or Palestinians. It is about free speach and due process.

So, you are a Trump supporter?

 

The case has nothing to do with free speech, and yes, he is entitled to due process. 

1 minute ago, Stewart12 said:

Thankfully, the chap has a lawyer.

If he didn't, one would be appointed. 

[Nick Carter icp]

16 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

 

It's not about hating Trump, supporting Israel or Palestinians. It is about free speach and due process.

 

Thankfully, the chap has a lawyer.

 

   He attacked the campus , vandalism and attacked students .

He had his right to remain cancelled .

He is being sent home for misbehaving 

[Stewart12]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, you are a Trump supporter?

 

The case has nothing to do with free speech, and yes, he is entitled to due process. 

If he didn't, one would be appointed. 

 

No, but I didn't support Kamala either! Both dreadful candidates in my opinion

Yes, it is about free speech, unless the government can provide evidence that he is supporting a terrorist organisation. If the government had done this, I would have supported it.

But on the face of it, it looks like Trump is going way overboard and kicking out those who support Palestinian rights - which is not supporting a terrorist entity.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Stewart12 said:

 

No, but I didn't support Kamala either! Both dreadful candidates in my opinion

Yes, it is about free speech, unless the government can provide evidence that he is supporting a terrorist organisation. If the government had done this, I would have supported it.

But on the face of it, it looks like Trump is going way overboard and kicking out those who support Palestinian rights - which is not supporting a terrorist entity.

Yes, it is about free speech, 

 

No it is not. not in any way. You can jump up and down all day but this is not about free speech. Read or listen to the statements from officials on what its about. Its in the OP

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes, it is about free speech, 

 

No it is not. not in any way. You can jump up and down all day but this is not about free speech. Read or listen to the statements from officials on what its about. Its in the OP

He only trusts the Al Jazeera for accurate information 

[Stewart12]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   He attacked the campus , vandalism and attacked students .

He had his right to remain cancelled .

He is being sent home for misbehaving 

Proof? Links?

Amazing that you know he's guilty, but Mike Johnson couldn't pin anything on him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mike-johnson-cant-say-what-crimes-mahmoud-khalil-committed/ar-AA1AHNs6
 

Of course, if i'm wrong - i'm wrong. But I haven't seen anything yet

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Stewart12 said:

Proof? Links?

Amazing that you know he's guilty, but Mike Johnson couldn't pin anything on him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mike-johnson-cant-say-what-crimes-mahmoud-khalil-committed/ar-AA1AHNs6
 

Of course, if i'm wrong - i'm wrong. But I haven't seen anything yet

 

   There's a video posted on the previous page 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Stewart12 said:

Proof? Links?

Amazing that you know he's guilty, but Mike Johnson couldn't pin anything on him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mike-johnson-cant-say-what-crimes-mahmoud-khalil-committed/ar-AA1AHNs6
 

Of course, if i'm wrong - i'm wrong. But I haven't seen anything yet

3 day old article. yes you are wrong:

 

 

 

[Stewart12]

On 3/14/2025 at 7:01 AM, Social Media said:

With political tensions running high, Khalil’s case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over free speech, immigration policies, and the limits of activism on college campuses. The Trump administration appears determined to continue its crackdown, while Democrats face mounting criticism for their vocal support of Khalil.  

 

Perhaps you should read the OP properly, instead of advising others to do so. It quite clearly says this is a national debate about free speech 
 

 

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes, it is about free speech, 

 

No it is not. not in any way. You can jump up and down all day but this is not about free speech. Read or listen to the statements from officials on what its about. Its in the OP