Matt and Walter are discussing the issue of free speech and whether or not it applies in the recent case of the Trump administration’s policy on rooting out Hamas-sympathizers and revoking their green card for separation.
I would agree if this was just about free speech and freedom of expression. For those demonstrators/protestors who intimidate or threaten Jewish students.....and especially for the ones who barricade them in buildings where the students fear for their safety.....that is different. We have no obligation to accept or keep people in this country who violate the rights of our citizens, or who show tangible support for our adversaries, especially terrorists. Enough of that! Boot them out!
Yes, agree if actual laws are broken, out you go. But if it’s only speech you don’t like then a big f*cking NO. As Matt & Walter discussed, USA is last bulwark in world to protect free speech, 1A. Don’t get flippant with it.
It comes to whether this guy engaged in "speech", or actual illegal activities. We need to absolutely let people speak their minds, as many jurists have pointed out "even if it is something we disagree with". However, that protection stops when the person crosses the line into criminality. A big issue here is that the MSM is as usual only telling the side of the story that fits their narrative, versus the whole story. They will then try to take this "lie of omission", and turn it into Trump's team "trampling all over the constitution ". Just watch...
Read this regarding threatening violence or instigating it. That is sufficient for deportation: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
I think this is one for courts to decide. 1A vs. this 1956 law. I think Trump administration got themselves in a pickle by targeting someone who was here on a green card. Should have chosen someone first, just here on student visa.
Completely agree, Matt. This is censorship of speech. There are already laws in place against violence and threats of violence. This is catering to the Zionists do that they can continue their slaughter of over 100,000 civilians in Gaza without criticism. It’s unAmerican and unChristian.
He is not a citizen under our Constitution. He has a green card which is a precious gift from the U.S. He has no 1st Amendment rights. He was behaving as a terrorist and supporting terrorist causes … HE LITERALLY WAS TERRORIZING AMERICAN JEWS. Terrorists are being deported. That’s it.
This is not about speech "you don't like". There are restrictions on speech for foreign nationals present in the U.S., whether on a temporary visa or permanent resident visa, that prohibit supporting or encouraging terrorist organizations or using speech to threaten or intimidate. Those things do constitute "actual laws (that) are broken". People who are graciously allowed entry into the country are made aware of this when they apply for or are granted their visas.
I’m afraid this guy is being held up as ‘red meat’ prop or ‘stand in’ for all the nasty antisemitic protests that went on at Columbia, to Americans outraged at that behavior seen on TV and in press. Otherwise the government would have charged Khalil with a specific crime and not detention and impending deportation based on wrong-speak. I’m too civic-minded than to fall for this, even though I don’t agree whatsoever with Khalil’s speech.
Kathleen, are you saying ‘they’ = Mahmoud Khalil? I’m waiting to see the evidence against an individual (and if you support blind justice) then you should too.
Have we learned nothing from the Left’s incessant cancellation for speech they did not like?
Exactly. Threats/intimidation are not free speech. They can support Hamas all they want with their speech. Once you cross the line with your actions/threats, see ya later.
I tend to think that we need to get this situation under control, Sasha. Are you seeing what's happening in Syria with the Muslim Brotherhood genociding literally thousands of Christians, Druze, and Alawhite Muslims? And the takeover in Europe? And the newly appointed Canadian prime minister, who stated on camera that he agrees with Hamas?
Islam is marching forward, asserting its dominance over all of the world, and their aggressive and violent protests here are an attempt to gain sympathy and traction in the United States. This is a hostile takeover, and at this point, Trump is the only thing that stands in the way of the US being overcome like other Western countries.
He must be allowed to make it abundantly clear that radical Islam and terror supporters have no place in America.
If the line is not drawn with a heavy hand and right now, no one will be safe from this point.
"President Donald J. Trump is the only thing that stands in the way of the US being overcome like other Western countries. He must be allowed to make it abundantly clear that radical Islam and terror supporters have no place in America. If the line is not drawn with a heavy hand and right now, no one will be safe from this point."
If Trump deports and there is even grey area perception among public (including those in MAGA like me) that it was based on wrong-speech, then we BECOME just like the authoritarian EU who are also squelching speech they don’t like. We become like them. Which would be a horrible development.
Matt, a little more complex than the propaganda media would have you believe. Read "chrisbray.substack.com". I agree that we need to be careful with protecting free speech, but I think the guy crossed the line threatening violence and is now trying to hide behind the second ammendment. just my opinion.
I’m not reading any propaganda. I’m Gen X and a 1A absolutist that knows this is the most special and precious right in the world, and we here in the USA are the only country that still has it. I don’t want it dented in any small or big way because snowflakes here don’t like or can’t handle the speech. I’m now worried that if Trump deports then the perception is that we are no better than EU authoritarian governments and how they are squelching speech from individuals they don’t like. The key word above is ‘perception’. We can be ‘right’ on the legal detail but ‘wrong’ in court of public opinion.
It must be clear criminal, dangerous behavior, not only speech. Otherwise, among other things, the move backfires and creates sympathy for the cause of the deported.
So, if a gang threatens your teenager every day, until your teen feels bullied to the point of joining the gang, you'll be sympathetic for his bullies?
It is intellectually dishonest to label pro-Palestinian supporters/advocates/protesters as "antisemites" or "pro-Hamas supporters," let alone radical Islamist terrorists. I am a white American female, and I support the Palestinians in their fight for freedom and human & civil rights from the apartheid, oppression and occupation of Israel's zionist leaders. Do you think I "have no place in America," too???
I think you should take some lessons from MLK and Ghandi. Their methods actually worked.
You will not get what you want by donning full face masks and keffiyehs, blocking traffic, vandalizing, torching police cars, and screaming about your free speech rights.
It’s a general response to all your comments. It’s usually a good idea to follow a course that has a chance to produce the results you are looking for. Unless, of course, this isn’t really about Palestinian rights at all.
freedom and civil rights in Palestine? You need to do some research. Hamas IS the government. Women have no rights. As a white American female you would be raped and tortured if you went there. Gays go to Israel so they won't be murdered. No Jews have lived in Palestine since 2005. Palestinian citizens murdered a baby and a four year old by strangling them and beating them with rocks. Then paraded their coffins through town before sending them back to Israel. And Why won't any other country, including Arab countries, volunteer to take in Palestian refugees?
LOL. I've been studying the region's history for 15+ years now, from historians, geopolitical analysts, political scientists and other intellectuals. Sounds like your sources are the hasbara-controlled media. Otherwise, you'd know that Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem have ultimately been under Israel's control since the 1967 war. You'd also know the IDF has maimed, tortured and murdered VASTLY MORE Palestinians than Hamas has done to Israelis. And you'd further know Arab countries have indeed taken in refugees throughout this decades-long conflict. Their current reluctance to take in more, however, is because they disagree with, and don't want to be complicit in, Israel's ethnic cleansing (ie forced displacement) of all Palestinians, preventing any chance of Palestinian statehood.
If you support and celebrate pro-terrorism activities, including violence, discrimination, vandalism and attacks on law enforcement in order to advance your hatred toward an ethnic group in our country, then your have no regard for American rule of law and no place in our society. Darn right.
The real slippery slope here is equating the disruptions on college campuses with free speech. Intimidation, disturbing the peace, and assault are not free speech. We cannot allow them to redefine this behavior as free speech. They are attempting to use our principles against us.
Intimidation falls under 1A protection. Assault does not. Disturbing the peace, while a criminal action, can be easily misinterpreted and misapplied, depending on the situation.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just curious. Can it be that any sort of disruptive behavior must be tolerated as long as one shouts slogans while doing it? That seems unbelievable.
It depends on the slogans. If they are innocuous and/or open to interpretation, they're protected. If they are intentional, direct incitements to *immediate* violence, they're criminal offenses.
Keeping students from entering or leaving buildings is not free speech to me, but it appears it is for leftists unless one is standing and praying in front of abortion clinics.
In my opinion, If you’re here on a visa, you don’t get to enjoy the same rights as our citizens. That includes freedom of speech. They should be grateful they have the opportunity to come here to go to school. So yes, boot them out!
The difference between the rights of a foreigner and a citizen is that if you are accused and indicted for violating the clause on terrorism or terroristic acts, including threatening the safety of Americans, you have a right to a trial, if a citizen (6th Amendment). But you do not have that right as a foreigner and can be expelled immediately without any trial. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
I have no idea what the Federal govt has on him. They obviously have probable cause. I was only making the point that it does not require an actual criminal action, only intent, according to the law. Sure, some liberal activist judge will place a restraining order. The case will go through the courts. Obviously. Just about everything does in political lawfare. Great time to have a law degree in Constitutional law
No crime is required to expel a foreign national. Only a concern for national safety. Leading protests on behalf of a declared terrorist organization, Hamas, is sufficient under the law. As it should be. Anyone who has guests who behave badly in their home, asks them to leave, or throws them out the door. Any culture, any place, any time
Green card, visa, it doesn't matter. Foreigners can have their permits to be here pulled at any time. Visas are not a right. They are an invitation to stay on good behavior
Read above. There is no requirement of an actual crime to expel foreign nationals. That is American law and has been tested and judgements ruled several times
Speech and peaceful protest is one thing but harassing students, disrupting classes and occupying university property is something else. If you are a guest in this country on a student visa and are supporting terrorism I don't think you have a right to stay in this country. If you are a citizen of this country you have the right to express your views however odious they may be, but I don't think we are under any obligation to invite people into this country who clearly don't support the principles on which the country was founded.
I'm not against immigration but we should be selective about who we let in. The UK is turning into a hellhole where girls are raped with impunity because the government is afraid to upset the Muslim Pakistani population. We don't want that to happen here.
This particular "student non student" came here 2 years ago! How did he get a green card in under 2 years? I've read of how people spend 10 years trying to get one. What's up with
I don't know how he got a green card but I think it's wrong to view this as primarily a free speech issue. The question should be is this the type of person that we want to invite into our country? If you are a citizen you have the right to support Nazis, Communists, the KKK or any other crazy group as long as you are not threatening imminent harm. But why would we want to invite followers of an ideology that goes against the principles of our country? Nobody has a right to immigrate to our country. There are plenty of people who want to immigrate to our country who share our values and will add to our quality of life, Mahmoud Khalil is not one of them.
The problem is that "harassment", class "disruption", "occupying" PUBLIC property, "supporting terrorism" and "support of our founding principles" are all very vague and subjective terms.
Not so slippery. For foreign students or anyone in America on a visa, the Constitutional protections on free speech do not apply. If a criminal act is committed in the action of protest, then the urgency for expelling the person is that much greater. Posted today: "Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, green card holders do not need to be convicted of something to be “removable,” Kelley-Widmer said. They could be deported if the secretary of homeland security or the attorney general have reasonable grounds to believe they engaged in, or are likely to engage in, terrorist activities"
Separate ‘speech’ from ‘criminal acts’. You, sir are co-mingling them and that is wrong, and dangerous. Do not jail or deport for speech. But if laws are broken, then yes you can deport.
Actually, it's the Hamas supporters who are commingling them. They are claiming persecution on the basis of their speech when the reality is that they are being prosecuted for viewpoint neutral impermissible conduct such as trespass, harassment, threats, inciting imminent violence, assault, and endorsing terrorist activities or organizations. The legal standards distinguishing between protected speech and illegal conduct are actually rather clear in these cases.
Been there, did that already, scroll around, you'll find it. Heck, even FIRE admitted they committed unlawful conduct. That's not really in dispute by anyone at this point. If you think otherwise I'd really like you to point me to any successful lawsuit they've won against the arresting officers for wrongful arrest.
Can you imagine what a civil-war on American soil would look like? While Hamas's barbaric invasion of Israel on October 7 was reminiscent of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or Attila the Hun, other wars today look different. America, too, is under attack, from without and within.
The enemies of the West -- such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Qatar -- know they cannot yet defeat the US in direct military conflict, so they engage in "asymmetric warfare". They spend billions endowing chairs, professors and student scholarships, hijacking our universities, perverting societal values and turning our children against our country and us. Through America's open southern border, they smuggle huge quantities of fentanyl from China that kill 90,000 people a year, and infiltrate groups of military-aged men. They hijack and attack cargo ships at sea to sabotage our economy. They weaponize social media apps such as TikTok to promote self-mutilation, drug use and hostile ideologies among our youth. They bribe our elected and appointed officials. They pay people to riot in our streets, block roads, bridges and even airports. They have openly started shouting "Death to America" in New York, Chicago and Michigan.
They can only do these things because our leaders, media, judicial system and academic institutions allow them to. Our governments and institutions are failing us. The shrugs from our elite class are an invitation to the enemies of the Free World to exploit the disarray. We even fund and empower our adversaries, whether by investing in China's military machine or by handing billions of dollars to Iran's regime, for use in terrorism and their nuclear weapons program. Our enemies are determined. They are relentless. They have a plan and are executing it every day.”
You're right about what's happening, but incorrect about the perpetrators. Rather than the spate of foreign countries Western governments scapegoat as the boogeymen, it's actually the globalists and faux-lanthropists like Soros, Gates, Rockefellers, WEF, et al. Oh, and think tanks like the Gatestone Institute and its donors.
They are not American citizens, therefore any speech they have is privileged and if abused for any reason they go. Their visas have more stipulations on free speech etc for even being here. This Trump stipulation is just another USA privilege for being here. If they are not citizens they are not protected by the bill of rights.
Deport their asses. hamas is a designated terrorist organization and immigration/visa applications ask if the applicant currently or in the past has supported a terrorist organization. If they said NO but support hamas, they lied on their application and can be deported. No 1st Amendment right to falsify an immigration or visa application. If they didn't lie but said YES and still received their visa or green card, we have a larger issue.
Or.... perhaps we consider that the "terrorist" designation is politically-motivated, and maybe not give it a great deal of credence. Remember, the U.S. once dubbed Nelson Mandela's political party, the African National Congress, a terrorist group.
Hey Irish, be careful celebrating any Irish songs this weekend that may be in support of a united Ireland lest you be arrested for activities aligned to the IRA, a designated terrorist organization.
there are legal consequences to providing support to a designated terrorist organization, just as there are legal consequences to a person's citizenship status. You can choose to not give a great deal of credence but that doesn't change how it's viewed legally.
Here's a conversation I just had with ChatGPT, which concurs with other discussions I've heard from various constitutional lawyers, including those at the FIRE organization and Glenn Greenwald:
Do foreign students in America on a Visa have the constitutional right to free speech or is that only guaranteed to American citizens?
Foreign students in the U.S. on a visa do have First Amendment rights, including free speech. The U.S. Constitution protects “persons” rather than just “citizens” in many of its provisions, and courts have consistently ruled that non-citizens—including visa holders, permanent residents, and even undocumented immigrants—are entitled to free speech protections.
However, visa holders are still subject to immigration laws, and certain types of speech or actions (such as inciting violence or engaging in activities deemed a threat to national security) could impact their visa status or lead to deportation. Additionally, while the First Amendment protects against government censorship, private universities and employers may have their own rules that restrict speech in certain ways.
Have there been Supreme Court rulings on this issue?
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens, including visa holders, are protected by the First Amendment. Some key cases include:
1. Bridges v. Wixon (1945) – The Court ruled that resident non-citizens have the right to free speech and that their political beliefs alone cannot be used as grounds for deportation.
2. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953) – The Court reaffirmed that non-citizens lawfully present in the U.S. have due process rights, which include First Amendment protections.
3. Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) – The Court acknowledged that foreign scholars and speakers may be denied entry for ideological reasons, but it also reinforced that non-citizens inside the U.S. are entitled to First Amendment protections.
4. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999) – The Court recognized that non-citizens have free speech rights but noted that the government has broader discretion in enforcing immigration laws, even when selective enforcement is alleged.
These cases establish that foreign students and other visa holders do have First Amendment rights, but those rights are not absolute—especially when national security or immigration status is at stake.
I think an investigation into what this green card holder did is required. If he engaged in actions - - not just words - - that violated the rights of other students or any of the formal policies of the University, then it’s his cations that are the cause of his being deported. Did he block doorways? Threaten Jewish students? Refuse to leave when asked to do so? The U.S. is free to regulate its green-card holders. Yes, they have free speech rights. No, they cannot terrorize innocents. Do the investigation, and then decide whether he’s deportable.
Now the issue is in the spotlight. Shine the light on it. Create the opportunity for the issue to be debated and litigated in an open and transparent way. Clarify the issue for all to see. Even if it means taking an L. Spend some political capital and clarify the issue in an unambiguous way. We all benefit from that.
What would Reason’s reaction be if it were: “Immigrant students who express sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan will have their visas and green cards revoked so that deportation proceedings may be brought against them…”
It's not Reason's views; they're just quoting representatives of the ACLU and F.I.R.E., which would no doubt be the same. Remember, even the 1A rights of the Nazis marching in Skokie were protected.
I'm actually super worried about this one. First, I'd like for them to release exactly what they are charging him with. If it is speech, then no, I'll have to break with the administration on this topic and will speak up for his release. This doesn't mean I don't support the administration altogether, but on this issue, I can't support this. That's a big IF. We haven't been told why exactly he is being held. I also found this:
While protesting for the rights of a designated foreign terrorist organization is generally not illegal under the First Amendment, advocating for or actively supporting their actions, including providing material support, can be considered illegal under US law, particularly under the "material support" statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) which prohibits providing aid to designated terrorist groups; the line between protected speech and illegal support can be complex and subject to interpretation by courts depending on the specific actions taken during the protest.
Key points to consider:
Freedom of Speech:
The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions even if they are unpopular or controversial, including advocating for certain causes, even if they are associated with a designated terrorist organization.
Material Support:
The key legal concern is when protest activities cross the line into providing material support" to a terrorist organization, -----which could include fundraising, providing training, or actively encouraging violent acts-----
Intention and Context:
Courts will consider the intent behind the protest and the specific actions taken to determine if they constitute illegal material support.
He’s not a citizen but here on a visa. He doesn’t have first amendment protection as a guest. If he is instigating violence against Jewish students, he needs kicked out promptly.
‘While it is true that legal permanent residents enjoy certain constitutional protections, their rights are neither absolute nor coextensive with those of U.S. citizens, particularly in the realm of immigration and national security. Precedents such as Turner v. Williams (1904) underscore Congress’s broad authority to exclude or remove aliens based on ideological grounds, affirming that non-citizens can be expelled for advocating beliefs deemed inimical to national security.’ There is solid reason for revocation and deportation.
He is not being charged with a crime, whether it be material support for terrorism or lying on his immigrant or visa application. The legal standards and justification for deportation are entirely different. Unless his attorney can show the government is in violation of immigration laws, the 1st Amendment is a red herring and a deflection. His supporters and attorneys will frame the issue as a 1st Amendment issue, because admitting he lied on his visa or immigration application papers, or was justified in lying, is a losing argument.
C’mon, yelling racists language and preventing fellow students from attending class is NOT terrorism. You (and in this case the Trump administration) severely cheapen language by suggesting so.
When they are taking over buildings, yelling and threatening students who are there to learn, and inciting violence to others, they are supporting terrorism. He is a guest in this country and is no longer welcome.
It’s not losing argument if people on the Right like me and people on the Left PERCEIVE this is a deportation based on 1A. I don’t want to be like the authoritarian EU.
Controlling perception is exactly what the Islamists are trying to do. Hamas are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters! Israel is committing genocide! We are not anti-Semitic, we are only anti-Zionist! They have been amazingly successful at selling their anti-Western views.
Now they are trying to change our perception of free speech. Harassing Jews is merely free speech! Blocking expressways, more free speech! They want us to believe they can do almost anything they wish, because they hold unpopular views so it’s really about free speech.
You are right that perception matters. We cannot allow them to control our perception of reality.
This is so hypocritical of our government. Evidently, only IT is allowed to break the law by providing material support to terrorist organizations all over the world for the purpose of regime change operations via color revolutions, etc. Depending on which way the political winds are blowing, one day foreign leaders and "freedom fighters" are our allies, the next day we designate them as "terrorists." It's all B.S.
I would agree if this was just about free speech and freedom of expression. For those demonstrators/protestors who intimidate or threaten Jewish students.....and especially for the ones who barricade them in buildings where the students fear for their safety.....that is different. We have no obligation to accept or keep people in this country who violate the rights of our citizens, or who show tangible support for our adversaries, especially terrorists. Enough of that! Boot them out!
Yes, agree if actual laws are broken, out you go. But if it’s only speech you don’t like then a big f*cking NO. As Matt & Walter discussed, USA is last bulwark in world to protect free speech, 1A. Don’t get flippant with it.
It comes to whether this guy engaged in "speech", or actual illegal activities. We need to absolutely let people speak their minds, as many jurists have pointed out "even if it is something we disagree with". However, that protection stops when the person crosses the line into criminality. A big issue here is that the MSM is as usual only telling the side of the story that fits their narrative, versus the whole story. They will then try to take this "lie of omission", and turn it into Trump's team "trampling all over the constitution ". Just watch...
Read this regarding threatening violence or instigating it. That is sufficient for deportation: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
I think this is one for courts to decide. 1A vs. this 1956 law. I think Trump administration got themselves in a pickle by targeting someone who was here on a green card. Should have chosen someone first, just here on student visa.
The US Constitution protects US citizens. We need to be less generous in giving visitors and illegals the same rights as citizens.
Completely agree, Matt. This is censorship of speech. There are already laws in place against violence and threats of violence. This is catering to the Zionists do that they can continue their slaughter of over 100,000 civilians in Gaza without criticism. It’s unAmerican and unChristian.
He is not a citizen under our Constitution. He has a green card which is a precious gift from the U.S. He has no 1st Amendment rights. He was behaving as a terrorist and supporting terrorist causes … HE LITERALLY WAS TERRORIZING AMERICAN JEWS. Terrorists are being deported. That’s it.
This is not about speech "you don't like". There are restrictions on speech for foreign nationals present in the U.S., whether on a temporary visa or permanent resident visa, that prohibit supporting or encouraging terrorist organizations or using speech to threaten or intimidate. Those things do constitute "actual laws (that) are broken". People who are graciously allowed entry into the country are made aware of this when they apply for or are granted their visas.
I’m afraid this guy is being held up as ‘red meat’ prop or ‘stand in’ for all the nasty antisemitic protests that went on at Columbia, to Americans outraged at that behavior seen on TV and in press. Otherwise the government would have charged Khalil with a specific crime and not detention and impending deportation based on wrong-speak. I’m too civic-minded than to fall for this, even though I don’t agree whatsoever with Khalil’s speech.
Anyone who supports terrorism must go back
We have enough home grown trouble makers and certainly don’t need more of them
No to deportation for speech you don’t like. Let 1A rule, not your feelings.
It’s not simply speech; they are actually inciting violence and intimidating/threatening Jewish students
Kathleen, are you saying ‘they’ = Mahmoud Khalil? I’m waiting to see the evidence against an individual (and if you support blind justice) then you should too.
Have we learned nothing from the Left’s incessant cancellation for speech they did not like?
Please provide citations of specific examples of this happening.
Nailed it!
Exactly. Threats/intimidation are not free speech. They can support Hamas all they want with their speech. Once you cross the line with your actions/threats, see ya later.
I tend to think that we need to get this situation under control, Sasha. Are you seeing what's happening in Syria with the Muslim Brotherhood genociding literally thousands of Christians, Druze, and Alawhite Muslims? And the takeover in Europe? And the newly appointed Canadian prime minister, who stated on camera that he agrees with Hamas?
Islam is marching forward, asserting its dominance over all of the world, and their aggressive and violent protests here are an attempt to gain sympathy and traction in the United States. This is a hostile takeover, and at this point, Trump is the only thing that stands in the way of the US being overcome like other Western countries.
He must be allowed to make it abundantly clear that radical Islam and terror supporters have no place in America.
If the line is not drawn with a heavy hand and right now, no one will be safe from this point.
"President Donald J. Trump is the only thing that stands in the way of the US being overcome like other Western countries. He must be allowed to make it abundantly clear that radical Islam and terror supporters have no place in America. If the line is not drawn with a heavy hand and right now, no one will be safe from this point."
If Trump deports and there is even grey area perception among public (including those in MAGA like me) that it was based on wrong-speech, then we BECOME just like the authoritarian EU who are also squelching speech they don’t like. We become like them. Which would be a horrible development.
Matt, a little more complex than the propaganda media would have you believe. Read "chrisbray.substack.com". I agree that we need to be careful with protecting free speech, but I think the guy crossed the line threatening violence and is now trying to hide behind the second ammendment. just my opinion.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
I’m not reading any propaganda. I’m Gen X and a 1A absolutist that knows this is the most special and precious right in the world, and we here in the USA are the only country that still has it. I don’t want it dented in any small or big way because snowflakes here don’t like or can’t handle the speech. I’m now worried that if Trump deports then the perception is that we are no better than EU authoritarian governments and how they are squelching speech from individuals they don’t like. The key word above is ‘perception’. We can be ‘right’ on the legal detail but ‘wrong’ in court of public opinion.
It must be clear criminal, dangerous behavior, not only speech. Otherwise, among other things, the move backfires and creates sympathy for the cause of the deported.
So, if a gang threatens your teenager every day, until your teen feels bullied to the point of joining the gang, you'll be sympathetic for his bullies?
"Absolute 1A?" Try yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater and see where you end up. Rights have responsibilities.
Nice straw man there, Ed. If a person yells ‘fire’ in a theater and it’s false that there is no flames, that’s a disorderly conduct charge.
We wouldn't "end up" anywhere. That refrain is a fallacy: https://yipinstitute.org/article/fire-in-a-crowded-theatre-discontinue-the-irrelevant-rebuttal
It is intellectually dishonest to label pro-Palestinian supporters/advocates/protesters as "antisemites" or "pro-Hamas supporters," let alone radical Islamist terrorists. I am a white American female, and I support the Palestinians in their fight for freedom and human & civil rights from the apartheid, oppression and occupation of Israel's zionist leaders. Do you think I "have no place in America," too???
I think you should take some lessons from MLK and Ghandi. Their methods actually worked.
You will not get what you want by donning full face masks and keffiyehs, blocking traffic, vandalizing, torching police cars, and screaming about your free speech rights.
That in no way addressed my comment.
It’s a general response to all your comments. It’s usually a good idea to follow a course that has a chance to produce the results you are looking for. Unless, of course, this isn’t really about Palestinian rights at all.
freedom and civil rights in Palestine? You need to do some research. Hamas IS the government. Women have no rights. As a white American female you would be raped and tortured if you went there. Gays go to Israel so they won't be murdered. No Jews have lived in Palestine since 2005. Palestinian citizens murdered a baby and a four year old by strangling them and beating them with rocks. Then paraded their coffins through town before sending them back to Israel. And Why won't any other country, including Arab countries, volunteer to take in Palestian refugees?
LOL. I've been studying the region's history for 15+ years now, from historians, geopolitical analysts, political scientists and other intellectuals. Sounds like your sources are the hasbara-controlled media. Otherwise, you'd know that Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem have ultimately been under Israel's control since the 1967 war. You'd also know the IDF has maimed, tortured and murdered VASTLY MORE Palestinians than Hamas has done to Israelis. And you'd further know Arab countries have indeed taken in refugees throughout this decades-long conflict. Their current reluctance to take in more, however, is because they disagree with, and don't want to be complicit in, Israel's ethnic cleansing (ie forced displacement) of all Palestinians, preventing any chance of Palestinian statehood.
TeeJae, your comment and Meagan B Henry's comment is proof the time has come to discuss a peaceful national divorce. Blue states & Red states.
If you support and celebrate pro-terrorism activities, including violence, discrimination, vandalism and attacks on law enforcement in order to advance your hatred toward an ethnic group in our country, then your have no regard for American rule of law and no place in our society. Darn right.
Nice strawman. In no way did that address what I said.
The real slippery slope here is equating the disruptions on college campuses with free speech. Intimidation, disturbing the peace, and assault are not free speech. We cannot allow them to redefine this behavior as free speech. They are attempting to use our principles against us.
Intimidation falls under 1A protection. Assault does not. Disturbing the peace, while a criminal action, can be easily misinterpreted and misapplied, depending on the situation.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just curious. Can it be that any sort of disruptive behavior must be tolerated as long as one shouts slogans while doing it? That seems unbelievable.
It depends on the slogans. If they are innocuous and/or open to interpretation, they're protected. If they are intentional, direct incitements to *immediate* violence, they're criminal offenses.
Keeping students from entering or leaving buildings is not free speech to me, but it appears it is for leftists unless one is standing and praying in front of abortion clinics.
It’s what they are doing while spreading their message that is the concern.
In my opinion, If you’re here on a visa, you don’t get to enjoy the same rights as our citizens. That includes freedom of speech. They should be grateful they have the opportunity to come here to go to school. So yes, boot them out!
The difference between the rights of a foreigner and a citizen is that if you are accused and indicted for violating the clause on terrorism or terroristic acts, including threatening the safety of Americans, you have a right to a trial, if a citizen (6th Amendment). But you do not have that right as a foreigner and can be expelled immediately without any trial. It is in 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
Brian, could you describe Mahmoud Khalili’s ‘act of terrorism’ that makes him eligible for deportation under 18 US Code 2332b?
I have no idea what the Federal govt has on him. They obviously have probable cause. I was only making the point that it does not require an actual criminal action, only intent, according to the law. Sure, some liberal activist judge will place a restraining order. The case will go through the courts. Obviously. Just about everything does in political lawfare. Great time to have a law degree in Constitutional law
Just curious, what criminal action did Khalil *intend* to commit?
No crime is required to expel a foreign national. Only a concern for national safety. Leading protests on behalf of a declared terrorist organization, Hamas, is sufficient under the law. As it should be. Anyone who has guests who behave badly in their home, asks them to leave, or throws them out the door. Any culture, any place, any time
Thank you
This!
He has a green card, Gary. He is not here on a visa. Does that change your opinion?
Green card, visa, it doesn't matter. Foreigners can have their permits to be here pulled at any time. Visas are not a right. They are an invitation to stay on good behavior
Good behavior = good speech in your example. Unless you have evidence that Mahmoud Khalil actually broke a law?
Read above. There is no requirement of an actual crime to expel foreign nationals. That is American law and has been tested and judgements ruled several times
It’s not a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Why would it? A lawful permanent resident is still legally an alien and still subject to 8 USC 1182.
Nope!
Speech and peaceful protest is one thing but harassing students, disrupting classes and occupying university property is something else. If you are a guest in this country on a student visa and are supporting terrorism I don't think you have a right to stay in this country. If you are a citizen of this country you have the right to express your views however odious they may be, but I don't think we are under any obligation to invite people into this country who clearly don't support the principles on which the country was founded.
I'm not against immigration but we should be selective about who we let in. The UK is turning into a hellhole where girls are raped with impunity because the government is afraid to upset the Muslim Pakistani population. We don't want that to happen here.
This particular "student non student" came here 2 years ago! How did he get a green card in under 2 years? I've read of how people spend 10 years trying to get one. What's up with
THAT?
I don't know how he got a green card but I think it's wrong to view this as primarily a free speech issue. The question should be is this the type of person that we want to invite into our country? If you are a citizen you have the right to support Nazis, Communists, the KKK or any other crazy group as long as you are not threatening imminent harm. But why would we want to invite followers of an ideology that goes against the principles of our country? Nobody has a right to immigrate to our country. There are plenty of people who want to immigrate to our country who share our values and will add to our quality of life, Mahmoud Khalil is not one of them.
I think you're confusing green cards with citizenship. It takes up to 90 days to get a green card.
The problem is that "harassment", class "disruption", "occupying" PUBLIC property, "supporting terrorism" and "support of our founding principles" are all very vague and subjective terms.
Not so slippery. For foreign students or anyone in America on a visa, the Constitutional protections on free speech do not apply. If a criminal act is committed in the action of protest, then the urgency for expelling the person is that much greater. Posted today: "Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, green card holders do not need to be convicted of something to be “removable,” Kelley-Widmer said. They could be deported if the secretary of homeland security or the attorney general have reasonable grounds to believe they engaged in, or are likely to engage in, terrorist activities"
Separate ‘speech’ from ‘criminal acts’. You, sir are co-mingling them and that is wrong, and dangerous. Do not jail or deport for speech. But if laws are broken, then yes you can deport.
Actually, it's the Hamas supporters who are commingling them. They are claiming persecution on the basis of their speech when the reality is that they are being prosecuted for viewpoint neutral impermissible conduct such as trespass, harassment, threats, inciting imminent violence, assault, and endorsing terrorist activities or organizations. The legal standards distinguishing between protected speech and illegal conduct are actually rather clear in these cases.
What's not clear are the "illegal acts" they allegedly conducted. Please provide citations describing what they actually did.
Been there, did that already, scroll around, you'll find it. Heck, even FIRE admitted they committed unlawful conduct. That's not really in dispute by anyone at this point. If you think otherwise I'd really like you to point me to any successful lawsuit they've won against the arresting officers for wrongful arrest.
“Dear Friend,
Can you imagine what a civil-war on American soil would look like? While Hamas's barbaric invasion of Israel on October 7 was reminiscent of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or Attila the Hun, other wars today look different. America, too, is under attack, from without and within.
The enemies of the West -- such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Qatar -- know they cannot yet defeat the US in direct military conflict, so they engage in "asymmetric warfare". They spend billions endowing chairs, professors and student scholarships, hijacking our universities, perverting societal values and turning our children against our country and us. Through America's open southern border, they smuggle huge quantities of fentanyl from China that kill 90,000 people a year, and infiltrate groups of military-aged men. They hijack and attack cargo ships at sea to sabotage our economy. They weaponize social media apps such as TikTok to promote self-mutilation, drug use and hostile ideologies among our youth. They bribe our elected and appointed officials. They pay people to riot in our streets, block roads, bridges and even airports. They have openly started shouting "Death to America" in New York, Chicago and Michigan.
They can only do these things because our leaders, media, judicial system and academic institutions allow them to. Our governments and institutions are failing us. The shrugs from our elite class are an invitation to the enemies of the Free World to exploit the disarray. We even fund and empower our adversaries, whether by investing in China's military machine or by handing billions of dollars to Iran's regime, for use in terrorism and their nuclear weapons program. Our enemies are determined. They are relentless. They have a plan and are executing it every day.”
Nina Rosenwald
President, Gatestone Institute
You're right about what's happening, but incorrect about the perpetrators. Rather than the spate of foreign countries Western governments scapegoat as the boogeymen, it's actually the globalists and faux-lanthropists like Soros, Gates, Rockefellers, WEF, et al. Oh, and think tanks like the Gatestone Institute and its donors.
Oh! Careful before you too get arrested for antisemitism and set off to the gulag. Happens in the EU btw.
As long as they're here on a student visa or green card, any form of misbehavior towards others is grounds for expulsion on a case by case basis.
They are not American citizens, therefore any speech they have is privileged and if abused for any reason they go. Their visas have more stipulations on free speech etc for even being here. This Trump stipulation is just another USA privilege for being here. If they are not citizens they are not protected by the bill of rights.
Deport their asses. hamas is a designated terrorist organization and immigration/visa applications ask if the applicant currently or in the past has supported a terrorist organization. If they said NO but support hamas, they lied on their application and can be deported. No 1st Amendment right to falsify an immigration or visa application. If they didn't lie but said YES and still received their visa or green card, we have a larger issue.
Or.... perhaps we consider that the "terrorist" designation is politically-motivated, and maybe not give it a great deal of credence. Remember, the U.S. once dubbed Nelson Mandela's political party, the African National Congress, a terrorist group.
Can you imagine this commentary if Trump put out an XO that said Israeli students could be deported for anti-Arabism? 😂
Right?! These folks are so blinded by their Arab/Islamophobia, they can't see their blatant hypocrisy.
Hey Irish, be careful celebrating any Irish songs this weekend that may be in support of a united Ireland lest you be arrested for activities aligned to the IRA, a designated terrorist organization.
26+6=1.
there are legal consequences to providing support to a designated terrorist organization, just as there are legal consequences to a person's citizenship status. You can choose to not give a great deal of credence but that doesn't change how it's viewed legally.
Here's a conversation I just had with ChatGPT, which concurs with other discussions I've heard from various constitutional lawyers, including those at the FIRE organization and Glenn Greenwald:
Do foreign students in America on a Visa have the constitutional right to free speech or is that only guaranteed to American citizens?
Foreign students in the U.S. on a visa do have First Amendment rights, including free speech. The U.S. Constitution protects “persons” rather than just “citizens” in many of its provisions, and courts have consistently ruled that non-citizens—including visa holders, permanent residents, and even undocumented immigrants—are entitled to free speech protections.
However, visa holders are still subject to immigration laws, and certain types of speech or actions (such as inciting violence or engaging in activities deemed a threat to national security) could impact their visa status or lead to deportation. Additionally, while the First Amendment protects against government censorship, private universities and employers may have their own rules that restrict speech in certain ways.
Have there been Supreme Court rulings on this issue?
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens, including visa holders, are protected by the First Amendment. Some key cases include:
1. Bridges v. Wixon (1945) – The Court ruled that resident non-citizens have the right to free speech and that their political beliefs alone cannot be used as grounds for deportation.
2. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953) – The Court reaffirmed that non-citizens lawfully present in the U.S. have due process rights, which include First Amendment protections.
3. Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) – The Court acknowledged that foreign scholars and speakers may be denied entry for ideological reasons, but it also reinforced that non-citizens inside the U.S. are entitled to First Amendment protections.
4. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999) – The Court recognized that non-citizens have free speech rights but noted that the government has broader discretion in enforcing immigration laws, even when selective enforcement is alleged.
These cases establish that foreign students and other visa holders do have First Amendment rights, but those rights are not absolute—especially when national security or immigration status is at stake.
But but that ruins all the comments about they don’t have First Amendment rights! Lol
I think an investigation into what this green card holder did is required. If he engaged in actions - - not just words - - that violated the rights of other students or any of the formal policies of the University, then it’s his cations that are the cause of his being deported. Did he block doorways? Threaten Jewish students? Refuse to leave when asked to do so? The U.S. is free to regulate its green-card holders. Yes, they have free speech rights. No, they cannot terrorize innocents. Do the investigation, and then decide whether he’s deportable.
Now the issue is in the spotlight. Shine the light on it. Create the opportunity for the issue to be debated and litigated in an open and transparent way. Clarify the issue for all to see. Even if it means taking an L. Spend some political capital and clarify the issue in an unambiguous way. We all benefit from that.
What would Reason’s reaction be if it were: “Immigrant students who express sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan will have their visas and green cards revoked so that deportation proceedings may be brought against them…”
It's not Reason's views; they're just quoting representatives of the ACLU and F.I.R.E., which would no doubt be the same. Remember, even the 1A rights of the Nazis marching in Skokie were protected.
I'm actually super worried about this one. First, I'd like for them to release exactly what they are charging him with. If it is speech, then no, I'll have to break with the administration on this topic and will speak up for his release. This doesn't mean I don't support the administration altogether, but on this issue, I can't support this. That's a big IF. We haven't been told why exactly he is being held. I also found this:
While protesting for the rights of a designated foreign terrorist organization is generally not illegal under the First Amendment, advocating for or actively supporting their actions, including providing material support, can be considered illegal under US law, particularly under the "material support" statute (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) which prohibits providing aid to designated terrorist groups; the line between protected speech and illegal support can be complex and subject to interpretation by courts depending on the specific actions taken during the protest.
Key points to consider:
Freedom of Speech:
The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions even if they are unpopular or controversial, including advocating for certain causes, even if they are associated with a designated terrorist organization.
Material Support:
The key legal concern is when protest activities cross the line into providing material support" to a terrorist organization, -----which could include fundraising, providing training, or actively encouraging violent acts-----
Intention and Context:
Courts will consider the intent behind the protest and the specific actions taken to determine if they constitute illegal material support.
He’s not a citizen but here on a visa. He doesn’t have first amendment protection as a guest. If he is instigating violence against Jewish students, he needs kicked out promptly.
Legal foreigners do in fact have 1A rights.
‘While it is true that legal permanent residents enjoy certain constitutional protections, their rights are neither absolute nor coextensive with those of U.S. citizens, particularly in the realm of immigration and national security. Precedents such as Turner v. Williams (1904) underscore Congress’s broad authority to exclude or remove aliens based on ideological grounds, affirming that non-citizens can be expelled for advocating beliefs deemed inimical to national security.’ There is solid reason for revocation and deportation.
It’s now being reported he’s here on green card. And administration upon learning this has apparently changed tact. As they should.
They can revoke his green card. Deport!
Revoke based on what? And if it’s wrong speech we’re no better than authoritarian EU countries.
He is not being charged with a crime, whether it be material support for terrorism or lying on his immigrant or visa application. The legal standards and justification for deportation are entirely different. Unless his attorney can show the government is in violation of immigration laws, the 1st Amendment is a red herring and a deflection. His supporters and attorneys will frame the issue as a 1st Amendment issue, because admitting he lied on his visa or immigration application papers, or was justified in lying, is a losing argument.
He actually is being charged with terrorism. He is responsible for the violence on campus. He will be deported.
C’mon, yelling racists language and preventing fellow students from attending class is NOT terrorism. You (and in this case the Trump administration) severely cheapen language by suggesting so.
When they are taking over buildings, yelling and threatening students who are there to learn, and inciting violence to others, they are supporting terrorism. He is a guest in this country and is no longer welcome.
It’s not losing argument if people on the Right like me and people on the Left PERCEIVE this is a deportation based on 1A. I don’t want to be like the authoritarian EU.
Controlling perception is exactly what the Islamists are trying to do. Hamas are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters! Israel is committing genocide! We are not anti-Semitic, we are only anti-Zionist! They have been amazingly successful at selling their anti-Western views.
Now they are trying to change our perception of free speech. Harassing Jews is merely free speech! Blocking expressways, more free speech! They want us to believe they can do almost anything they wish, because they hold unpopular views so it’s really about free speech.
You are right that perception matters. We cannot allow them to control our perception of reality.
Well said. 👏👏
This is so hypocritical of our government. Evidently, only IT is allowed to break the law by providing material support to terrorist organizations all over the world for the purpose of regime change operations via color revolutions, etc. Depending on which way the political winds are blowing, one day foreign leaders and "freedom fighters" are our allies, the next day we designate them as "terrorists." It's all B.S.
Free speech is a fundamental principle. People in power (left or right) have a way of justifying its abuse