I believe Khalil has exceeded "free speech" and is conducting menacing misbehavior. Since he is a guest in our house and is clearly engaging in menacing/harassing misbehavior and compelling others to do so, I see no reason not to tell him his welcome has run out and it's time for him to leave.
Pretty sure we can revoke a green card for any reason; it's a privilege. Green card is not equivalent to a citizen. Our constitution protects citizens of the USA. Therefore, he has no free speech rights, but this is not even about free speech. It's about a non-citizen supporting and advocating for a terrorist organization and threatening US citizens. Pretty much borders on treason. He should be in Gitmo and not Louisiana.
Understand and sympathize with your sentiment, however, he cannot be tried for treason since he is not a U.S. citizen. He is a foreigner advocating for a terrorist organization which regards the U.S. and our citizens as an enemy to rape, torture, and murder.
Not sure about needing a reason to revoke a green card; I think you may be right about that.
However, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically extends due process and equal protection under law to "any person within its jurisdiction;" in this you are flat wrong and contradicting the Constitution.
That is the whole argument against "anchor babies". If the parents are here illegally they aren't under our jurisdiction. You may be technically correct due to the green card, but that is something the courts would need to determine, and once his green card is revoked, he loses that protection for sure.
You are very ride a d very sadly misinformed. This case may end up in the Supreme Court and tbe law Trump cites is ancient. I think Trump knew it would be reviewed byvSCOYUS so based on their ruling, it can be used to remove the drek from our streets. We have enough morons inciting hate, we don't need people funded by Unwra and Qatar.
I agree. Was this so called marriage just to gain citizenship. As Glen Greenwald said President Trump married Melania but not because he wanted her to obtain citizenship, did this man do that. I’m only saying this based on his history and his actions. Notice in Meghan Kelly’s video he wasn’t present at the protest conveniently? Her comparison to The Godfather movie was spot on. I’ll be honest I’m very conflicted on this listening to MK and GG. It is truly a mess. But bottom line is Hamas are a terrorist organization, very organized and funded by Iran. I believe it’s almost an impossibility to negotiate with terrorists. It’s very unfortunate on the human side of this for this man to be separated from his pregnant wife, and perhaps deported but as Meghan said he should have thought of that before opening his mouth. Did he bring this on himself? I’m not sure this is a good analogy but I reference Julian Assange and what he did and the years of suffering being separated from his family. The sacrifices he had to make in his belief he was doing the right thing.
I would very much like to know if this is a marriage of convenience. As I understand it, he intends to give the impression that the pregnant woman with him is his wife, not his lawyer. So he’s not above mendacity for the cause.
Proud and grateful to say I am no lawyer. Is there a law that prevents the government from removing resident aliens for any reason at any time? Can they just declare a legal resident undesirable and kick them out? I don't know. But that's not what the government is doing in Kahlil's case.
The executive is openly declaring Kahlil an active criminal and denying him due process because he is an alien. In doing so, they are charging at a constitutional brick wall, and they are only going to knock themselves out.
If Kahlil is "clearly engaging in menacing/harassing misbehavior and compelling others to do so," swear out a warrant. I haven't seen or heard a shred of evidence to support this widely held contention, and I've spent hours looking for it. Neither, despite his many ill-advised interviews and on-camera appearances, have I discovered a recording of Kahlil "organizing" protests or "supporting Hamas," per se. If you have a link to something besides, "The gummint propaganda machine says so," I am eager to review it.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because this is America, it doesn't matter how stupidly Democrats censored political speech when they were pretending Biden was president, it is still a crime for Republicans to do the same thing. Because this is a nation of laws, we may punish a man for what he has done only after we have proven that he did it. We have a Constitution, and President Trump's first duty is to protect, defend, and uphold it. Will someone read the Fourteenth Amendment aloud to Mr. Trump, please? Might want to review the first thirteen for him as well; they are the part of the Constitution that matters most.
The only criminal behavior that Megyn cited was Khalil, as spokesperson for group, demanded that Columbia University divest from Israel, or their barricaded sit in’s would continue. A type of extortion. The same kind students also did in 1970’s and 80’s to Universities across the country to divest from then, apartheid South Africa. No students were arrested for that speech against South Africa. But they are when it’s Israel. Government, IMO, was right when they didn’t arrest before and wrong now. Because they are choosing which speech is acceptable and which is not. Which violates 1A.
See how well that worked out in Zimbabwe and soon South Africa?
Pretty soon the Boer farmers will be forced out and then no more food. Not our problem. I hope many South African farmers will take Trump’s invitation to move to the USA seriously and then come here. They are hard working, skilled, modern farmers who are mostly Christians.
No, absolutely not. The 1st Amendment only warrants unabridged speech or criticism of the government, not of private citizens, ethnic groups, or religions. You have it very wrong. Read the 1st Amendment and hopefully you will understand why you are wrong.
Students did public sit in’s to Chase and Barclay’s in 1960’s to protest those banks investments in apartheid South Africa- in mid to late 1960’s. Nothing happened to them. Tell me why that previous sit in was not prosecuted by Feds but one vs. Israel today, is? I’m a Zionist asking you this. But I’m also first and foremost an American, and 1A and my Constitution came along long before the State of Israel.
As more Americans wake up, I think this whole thing is going to backfire on Trump. A self-own he didn’t need to do.
If the “menacing behavior” causes someone to reasonably fear for their physical safety it is assault. The physical touch is battery. Assault by itself is a crime, no contact is needed.
Thanks for your measured take, Sasha. I’m Trump voter, support Israel right to exist, and currently come down on side of Khalil, 1A.
The reason for this is Trump has stated he’ll go after ‘antisemitism’ posted on socials from student visa holders and non citizens, using an AI online tool. I think antisemitism is vile. But it’s also protected free speech.
Is Khahil the ‘poster boy’ for revving up online speech policing? That’s what I fear. Because cracking open that door can lead to bad places, over time.
If you don’t think so, just look at what UK uses against its own citizens (Online Safety Act) to police ‘Islamophobia’. Cops show up at door, fines, etc. that is wrong, too.
We should all resist normalizing these kind of tools. Because one administration’s hate speech, can be a 180 on a next administration. Imagine for a moment the Israeli student who is in USA on a student visa and that person served in the IDF. That person could be said to be a terrorist and kicked out.
I wish more of us on both sides could see how much our cognitive dissonance blinds us to how this precedent, can be stretched in future, to police speech we think is benign and okay.
This case presents, IMO, a banana peel that we might slip on. I have common cause with the Left on this issue at present moment because I’ve yet to see evidence of crimes committed. Just ugly and gross speech, that I begrudgingly accept is 1A protected.
Please show us where the 1st Amendment states that a "peacable assembly to petition the government" applies to criticism and calls for violence against private citizens.
Also, how in the world does breaking and entering, vandalizing, then occupying a public or private space is "free speech"?
Show me where Khalil did that and you’ve made your point. Absent that, your cognitive dissonance has you applying all the antisemitic behavior on Columbia campus that you’ve seen, onto this particular person.
Jeff, I don’t like defending this guy, at all. His beliefs and speech make my stomach turn. I’m just wanting to see the Constitution be upheld as we wade through the antisemitic behavior that has reared its ugly head since 10/7. As much as I don’t like antisemitic or other racist speech, it is still 1A protected.
Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your measured and rational approach to this issue. I will admit that I have not been following this issue closely and so I don't know if Khalil's advocacy extends to Final Solutionism. I am probably more focused on the effect his advocacy has on private parties and the campus. He's not a citizen and even with permanent resident status, he is here at the convenience of the republic. His green card can be revoked for many reasons with misbehavior or incitement to riot or violence being a very good reason to deport him.
Personally I think it’s too early. I am waiting to see what evidence there is against him. If you watched the Megyn Kelly comments she said his lawyers are trying to keep the school from giving all the evidence to the government. That leads me to believe there is more to this story than we’ve been told.
Totally agree. I think it will be shown in due process that Khalil crossed the line, but his case is being used as a pretext to create speech codes against anti-Israel opinion. I disagree with Sasha that anti-Israel MAGA constitutes anti- Semitism. They just feel (correctly) that it should be MAGA not MIGA. You can't have both. No "special relationships". Not with Israel. Not with Britain. None.
Nobody has mentioned that KM went from a student visa to actual Green card holder in 2 years. Isn't that way out of sinc with normal requirements? If so, he is very special!
The dystopian named ‘Patriot Act’ had 9/11 as its pretext. I recall ‘war on terror’ language being used to pass that law in Oct 2001 - which in hindsight eroded the Bill of Rights and our overall Liberty. I’m hearing similar ‘national security’ language used in Khalil case.
I share many of your sentiments. But, what it comes down to for me is do we want to share Citizenship (the greatest asset on earth is US Citizenship) with someone who hates? And that goes for anyone who hates Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks, or Gays.... anyone who hates. Why grant him the privilege to stay in our Country and become a Citizen?
I know, it’s a tough one. Hating is constitutionally protected though. I don’t like it, but I accept that by protecting the worst of speech - then my speech (or yours) can never be abridged. This guy likely doesn’t deserve citizenship. But what is preventing his Green Card simply not being re-approved? Rather than arresting /detaining behind bars due to speech. I don’t like the precedent it establishes. It would be of interest to know/see how Khalil obtained and was granted Permanent Residency in the first place.
Matt, your reasoned defense of Khalil is basically where I am, except for the following. To me, something is rotten in Denmark, as follows.
Khalil came here on a student visa in 2022. In 2023, he married a US citizen with whom he had a " 7 year long-distance relationship". He got his green card in 2024, likely because of his marriage, which made him "an immediate relative" of a US citizen. But this marriage is not an automatic guarantee.
Before coming to the US, he worked (from 2018-2022) for the Syria Chevening Program for the British Embassy in Beruit. This program offers a fully funded masters level study in the UK to foreign students. Khalil recruited and interviewed applicants. He also worked for the UK Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund, the descriptions of which online remind me of our USAID. Khalil also apparently worked for or with UNRWA at some time.
He has joined a suit to stop Columbia from providing information it possesses on him to the US government.
It sounds and smells to me that he came here under false pretenses, and was either let in knowing he was a dirtbag, or he lied and nobody checked. The issue for me now that he’s here - is the Federal government is setting a precedent to punish political speech, that can 1st impact the 13 million other green card holders, and cracks door for this to creep into being applied in future, to citizens. Can his green card status simply not be renewed? Rather than imprisonment.
Sorry, WilliamD. In these United States one can’t punish someone for ‘who they are’. But you can for crime, or speech that incites crime. The closest actual crime I’ve seen (so far) on this case is Khalil as spokesperson for group that stated they would not stop their barricaded sit-in at Columbia University until the school divested from Israel. Other countries you can punish for being gay (like Iran) or wrong speak (like UK). But not here.
be careful celebrating any Irish songs this weekend that may be in support of Ireland lest you be arrested for activities aligned to the IRA, a designated terrorist organization.
I don’t care for Mr. Khalil and I have my suspicions about him . But so far, my impression is he’s being detained and threatened with deportation for expressing opinions that the administration dislikes. I don’t like them either and I wonder why this man was given a green card.So this is a difficult one to respond to . I am getting more than a bit tired of some of the Khalil defenders acting like anyone who thinks Khalil should be deported is a fascist. Still, unless it’s shown that this goes beyond expression of despicable opinion, I think a legal wrong may be in the process of being committed.
Jeff, I don’t give a damn about the guy; I worry very much about censorship and playing favorites for one particular group. It’s DEI all over again when you give extra benefits, in the guise of protections, to one particular group (ie Jewish people) instead of all groups. No has given Christians and Catholics similar protections snd we are definitely under frequent violent threats and actions. Research burned churches.
Haha, yes brother, I’ll be careful. Walter Kirn podcast w/ Tiabbi talked about his time at Oxford sometime in late 70’s/early ‘80’s. Told story of UK buddy w/ Irish heritage went to pub one too many times to play/sing Irish tunes. This at height of the ‘Troubles’ (North Ireland). Kirn didn’t see his friend for 3 days, and learned upon his return he had been jailed/detained by UK police. This lack of habeas corpus event to close friend is what helped transform him into 1A defender upon return to States.
A non citizen on a visa is not entitled to the same protections as a citizen, a non citizen organizing terrorist marches and more is entitled to be deported
Funny you never hear about this happening to Americans over seas. Reason - they absolutely wouldn't tolerate it for a second. Quick story. Back in the early 80's while in the US Navy, we had a port call in Greece. A couple of officers on the way back to the ship (yes, alcohol was involved) saw a Greek flag flying from a government building and thought, "gee, what a fun souvenir to have" and shimmied up the side of the building and hauled the flag down. Unfortunately they were spotted by a policeman who arrested them both. Everyone thought the Greeks would say, "OK, crazy Americans, pay a fine and go back to your ship". No, they were really pissed and they charged them with a serious crime, quickly tried them and sentenced the one with the flag to 10 years in prison and the other guy, who was just standing there, 1 year in prison. They rotted in jail for a while until our government was able to secure their release (only because we have a "status of forces" agreement with the Greeks for military on active duty). So, the reality is that just getting deported is a good deal for Khalil compared to what would happen to him in other countries.
Just wondering what happens to a person if they are in an airplane or in an airport and say they have a bomb (but really doesn’t) are they protected by the 1A???
He's entitled to the same constitutional protections while in the country. He's just not entitled to stay in the country. Asking a guest to leave the house (or country) isn't a violation of his rights. Deportation is for those who don't want to leave voluntarily.
No. A non citizen is not a citizen and is entitled to nothing. They are guests. Guests misbehaving are shown the door not elevated to citizen status so they can fuck us with our own laws.
I also side with Kelly. If he were a citizen, you have one set of considerations. But he is not. His presence here is provisional. He may in fact have lied on his green card application about his association with terrorist organizations. This was the basis we have used to deport Nazi concentration camp guards who lied on their entry and citizenship applications. He has celebrated the 10/7 atrocities, espoused the cause of Hamas and Hezbollah, and served as spokesman for an organization (CUAD) that calls for the destruction of Western Civilization, violently disrupted Columbia academic operations, and threatened campus Jews. We don't need him here.
If we want to lose our country to Islam (or China or any other potential enemy) we should just ignore the antisemites and anti-Americans as they propagandize our population like Europe allows to be done to it, especially impressionable young students. Seditionists are trying to convert them to an ideology that subverts the culture and laws of America. We have a Constitution that protects our citizens, but it does not protect our enemies. The British were not protected by the Constitution during the period between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Other non-citizen enemies of America similarly have been deported throughout the history of the country (note that even citizens who violate sedition laws can be imprisoned; every country has laws to protect itself)
I wish the Trump administration would ignore that Judge's order of blocking his deportation. It is an illegal action by that judge. Deport this Jihadist.
They can continue to detain Khalil. Meantime, they can test the lower court judge's decision in upper courts, maybe the Supreme Court. The law is very clear on this. The judge is completely wrong. But Trump wants to rebuild confidence in the legal system, even with these cockroaches planted by Dem Presidents in the lower level courts
While I agree in principle, I can't say I'm comfortable for any president to ignore a judge's order. On the other hand, it would be hard to argue that a temporary order of deportation would cause "irreparable harm," when clearly keeping a potential "instigator of terrorism" might very well cause irreparable harm. My suggestion would be to deport and await adjudication.
Many of these district Judges are way out of bounds with their rulings. This issue of deporting a non-citizen is NOT an article three matter. . Some of them should be impeached even if there are not enough votes in the senate to remove. Let it be a shot across the bow.
All of these leftist judges antagonizing the President and the Executive Branch are just goading him to violate their orders so that the left can endlessly scream “Constitutional crisis!”
Further, the evil left would like to impeach President Trump again if given the chance, and violating a judge’s order, no matter how ridiculous the order, would be their basis. President Trump knows this, that’s why he is following the law and will continue to do so.
You essentially provided my response to your post. If the executive branch is over reaching or what ever congress deems impeachable, they can do that. These judges are over reaching. Since we do not have enough votes in the senate to remove and barley enough to actually impeach, eventually Trump will have to ignore and/or force the SCOTUS to intervene. The only court that should be able to do Nation wide injunctions should be the SCOTUS. There already is a "Constitutional crisis" and it is emanating from a lot of these leftist district court judges.
Thank you for the conciseness of your post. It also makes me contemplate if Rep Omar can be charged for immigration fraud and stripped of citizenship and immediately deported back to Somalia.
Sasha, this is not complicated: the free expression of virtually any idea, even support for a terrorist group is permissible, be it on a college campus or even Sasha Stone's Free Thinking. But violence, acts of intimidation, vandalism, the occupation of buildings, blocking traffic--all of which, and more, happened at Columbia-- is not permissible, and must be punished. Insofar as Khalil, and any other foreign student, is in any way implicated in those illegal acts, they are subject to administrative deportation.
We cannot confuse "free speech" with acts that are clearly illegal. What happened at Columbia, and so many other colleges and universities, was not protest, but an attempt to impose, by force, a particular point of view. This can't be tolerated and explained away as "free speech," either at Columbia or anywhere else it happens.
Absolutely correct. This is clearly not about free speech rights for green card holders. It is an attempt to wrap any kind of behavior in the cloak of free speech rights, as long as slogans are invoked in the performance. This is the slippery slope we need to be concerned about.
I agree with you, Pacificus. Now, can the government show that Khalil committed these crimes? I’m unsure that they can, and that’s in part what makes this problematic. I sure wish government would show actual crimes committed, to be detaining a green card holder.
It’s entirely possible that Khalil did not physically participate in the vandalism or occupying of buildings. Andrew McCarthy’s article correctly points out that his leadership role is similar to crime bosses who direct people to commit crimes. Lack of physical participation does not necessarily exonerate him.
I’m not sure I buy the mafia boss analogy. We are talking about trespassing in Khalil case, as far as I can tell. Mafia bosses direct much more nefarious (felony) activities.
Maybe so. But McCarthy is right to point out that mafia bosses cannot invoke free speech to excuse their participation. Such as, I didn’t actually do anything, I just used my free speech to direct illegal activity.
All I need to see is one pic of Khalil in a building, one video of him harassing a student, one shot of him somewhere he was not authorized to be, etc. --and he deserves to go. As an acknowledged leader of the Free Palestine protest at Columbia, it seems reasonable to assume he is implicated in the criminal acts committed in its name.
I have seen you repeat the same points on Racket and here, Matt L. and I do appreciate your staunch support of 1A. I would urge you to listen to Megyn's pod from yesterday as she speaks about this first thing so you don't even have to listen to the rest of it.
I did listen to all of Megyn’s argument, as well as Glenn’s. Megyn point is that Khalil was the spokesman for the group that did the barricaded sit in at Columbia campus. And further, stated the sit in would not end until Columbia divested from Israel (a type of extortion). There is in fact a long history of this ‘extortion’ by student sit in’s in America’s history. You can read about how students did this to drive divestment from apartheid South Africa in 1970’s and 80’s.
The chilling aspect (to me) about this is the government is choosing which political speech to punish. I’m a Trump supporter. But what if a radical Biden type gains power in future? Then the precedent is established to do this in reverse. Israel (who I support) is somehow a sacred cow that can’t be scrutinized. That’s what this detainment is broadcasting. If for example Khalil was protesting for extortion divestment of Russia, or China - do you honestly think he would be detained in NYC, and then taken to Louisiana? It’s because it’s Israel, and Trump has said through this action that this country is off limits.
I don’t like Khahil’s speech. I like even less the Federal government (and the barrel of its gun) taking sides on which speech is okay and which is not.
Matt, thanks for your thoughtful comments. But I do not see a slippery slope issue here. You suggest this is about "the government choosing which speech to punish." It isn't. It's about acts of violence, intimidation, and other illegal acts. Insofar as any foreign student advocating for any cause employs such tactics, they are subject to deportation. At least that's how I see it. That's the bright red line here.
Free speech, yes. Violence, intimidation, the occupation of building, etc.--no.
Well said. I find it very difficult to equate what has and is still happening emanating from universities peaceful protests. Just like the supposed peaceful protests during the summer of love. I see it as mob mentality that uses intimidation and destruction to scare civil society. Their arguments include anti American vitriol that creates chaos on our streets. They are rarely peaceful. To add insult to injury they are making demands about two other nations as they plant flags and tear down American flags. They make their demands through chaos to our government as they wear masks symbolizing terrorists from another.
Anyone who cannot see these actions as destructive to our civil society are willfully blind. We only need to witness Europe to see where this is heading. Meanwhile Quatar is funding the universities to the tune of billions. I read that at Columbia 50 per cent if students are foreign. What are we doing?
Glenn Greenwald has been anti Israel from day one. I am paid subscriber to his podcast. I don’t agree with supporting mob mentality on principle because what we have witnessed is not peaceful protests. The troublemakers can be sent home where their speech and tactics are acceptable. They obviously want to transform the US into their own vision.
You have it 100% right. These Islamists are attempting to conquer the west through guile and manipulation because they lack the militaristic power for forceful expansion.
We are losing this war because much of the west’s leadership have been bought off. The only possible solution here is a harsh rebuke. Something brutal enough for the Qataris, Iranians, and Saudis to understand that we aren’t the EU. We will not tolerate this shit no matter how clever they are or how corrupt our politicians are. They can clutch at free speech pearls all they want, but to be perfectly frank, I do not give a fuck.
Throw this guy in Gitmo and then throw another 1000 of them in there too. Turn out the lights like they did to actual fucking Americans for J6.
I say this as a man who has a quarter of his family as Islamic fundamentalists. We are being conquered from within and as Americans if we do not stand up and stop this today we will fall just like Europe has.
You are correct. The islamists are very clever in the way they use Western (I.e., Jude’s-Christian) principles and values against us. They take money from us, because we love our neighbor, and they use it to buy cement for tunnel building and rockets for terror. They test our constitutional rights even when they are not entitled to them as non-citizens. They buy off homely, misfit American girls to do their bidding because they know these girls are lost souls. It’s truly disgusting.
If Khalil occupied a university building illegally he’s subject to be held without trial for at least 4 years…precedent was set by the Biden administration
What precedent will Trump set when the shoe is on other foot and Israeli student in USA who served in IDF is shown the door for being part of a ‘terrorist’ organization? I say think it through before we set new precedents we might later regret.
Actually that was a bit tongue in cheek…my point being, far worse was done to actual citizens who were waved in to the Capitol by people “at least dressed in police uniforms”. As to your question if a non-citizen supporter of Israel occupied a university building illegally he’s should receive the same treatment. There’s no “gotcha” here.
If this kind of "speech" were not so common since the days of St. George Floyd, I would be more inclined to regard this more as a matter of free expression. However, given the antics of the ACLU, the SPLC and the fact that most of this arises from the American Left, I now see it as incitement.
Certain peope and groups will not learn until clear examples are made and standaards are re-set. Adios Mr. Khalil.
Khalil wants to destroy America. What’s so hard about this? Get rid of him now. And never let him back in. I bet he applauded the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, speaking of free speech.
Agreed. This is a really great analysis of the arguments. I’m conflicted the same as Sasha. I don’t give a damn about this Khalil character. What’s important is the competing principles of protecting free speech as balanced with protecting Americans such as Jewish Columbia students from violence and threats as they attempt to get an education.
The main point is always that setting a bad legal precedent now can be weaponized against you when the political climate changes later.
Indeed. And that is why this weekend the Irish need to be careful singing Irish songs lest the government arrest them for support of the terrorist designated IRA group.
Exactly - and imagine now Irish catholic Americans would have supported English air strikes against residential neighborhoods killing thousands of children in Northern Ireland because terrorists were hiding there?
Yes, but a good legal argument in the future can always show the differences in any two situations. And the Supreme Court is, technically, not bound by a precedent that simply doesn’t work anymore. So I’d say do the right thing now and let the “but we don’t want to set a bad precedent” argument go by the wayside. The Supreme Court can overrule itself as needed. Consider the Court’s behavior in two huge cases: National League of Cities (1976) and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). Those were Commerce Clause/10th Amendment cases, where Garcia overruled the National League of Cities case just NINE years after National League of Cities was decided. Had the political climate changed between 1976 and 1985? You betcha. This is just how it works. Send that guy home now and worry about how the “precedent” will pan out later. We soon won’t have a country if we don’t protect it now.
I'm squarely on Megyn Kelly's side on this. This is not primarily a speech issue but an issue of who we want to invite into our country. As many have pointed out, a Green Card holder does not have all the rights as a citizen and can be deported if he represents a social or political group that espouses or endorses terrorist activity. Khalil clearly supports terrorist activity if it will help his cause.
But it's not so much what he says but who he is. He is not some random student who got caught up in the moment and said something offensive. He is a political organizer and operative of a destructive ideology. Nobody from a foreign country has a right to immigrate to this country. I'm not against immigration but we should be very selective on who we allow to come here. There are millions of decent people all around the world who are desperate to come to this country and would be a benefit to us. Why in the world would we ever want to invite someone like Khalil?
Deporting Khalil has no effect on the free speech rights of American citizens. As a citizen you are free to support any number of odious causes but I see no reason why we should want to import supporters of terrorism.
The takeover is happening at an ever accelerating pace, make no mistake about it. It is an antiWestern civilization, antiAmerican op and those who shut their eyes and ears to it, much less embrace it, are dancing with the devil.
The "muslim ban" was really about importing people who did not ascribe to our laws and beliefs of freedom of speech and religion from belligerent countries we were actively engaged in battle with. There is good reason NOT to allow immigration of people from countries we are having problems with for a variety of reasons. If you can't abide our laws, you shouldn't get a visa. If you can't abide their laws, you shouldn't go to those places. My wife, a feminist, refused to go to middle eastern countries for example. If you cannot be a good guest, you should reconsider going.
I've been wrestling with this since it happened. Here's where I've landed: He is trying to keep his disciplinary reports and academic records private from two separate colleges. The reason for this is that he has broken the law and the only reason he hasn't been punished has to do with money, the left-leaning colleges, and the cowardice of both those places. That seems clear enough to me at this point. Why else fight to hide them in court? My next issue to support his deportation is this: If he had been an American student (especially if he were White, Jewish, or Asian) he would have been kicked out already. I keep hearing about how the Jewish Americans aren't really being hurt by any of this because there are more of them and they have more power. I have no choice as a white person than to know that if I were being harassed and bullied on one of these colleges by a minority, these people would say the same thing about me. It's like you aren't allowed to be afraid or even ask to be provided safety because of your majority. I'm sick of this crap and I will keep standing up for the groups who don't seem to matter. Last, this is a flaw in my self for some people, but I will own it. If you weren't legally born on this soil and have done nothing to help build this society, I don't really care what your rights are. I probably don't think you should have as many as you do. For an American, I will fight for your speech. Call me when you are a citizen. Otherwise, if you can't assimilate and are here to cause trouble for even 1 American, Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
I believe Khalil has exceeded "free speech" and is conducting menacing misbehavior. Since he is a guest in our house and is clearly engaging in menacing/harassing misbehavior and compelling others to do so, I see no reason not to tell him his welcome has run out and it's time for him to leave.
Agree! If I had a guest in my house that was disrespectful and threatening I would kick their butt out!!
Pretty sure we can revoke a green card for any reason; it's a privilege. Green card is not equivalent to a citizen. Our constitution protects citizens of the USA. Therefore, he has no free speech rights, but this is not even about free speech. It's about a non-citizen supporting and advocating for a terrorist organization and threatening US citizens. Pretty much borders on treason. He should be in Gitmo and not Louisiana.
Understand and sympathize with your sentiment, however, he cannot be tried for treason since he is not a U.S. citizen. He is a foreigner advocating for a terrorist organization which regards the U.S. and our citizens as an enemy to rape, torture, and murder.
I'll agree, but I said it borders on treason, so technically you are correct. But we did put terrorists and those who abetted them in Gitmo.
All good except for the Gitmo sentiment. He just needs to go back to Syria or wherever he's truly from.
Not sure about needing a reason to revoke a green card; I think you may be right about that.
However, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically extends due process and equal protection under law to "any person within its jurisdiction;" in this you are flat wrong and contradicting the Constitution.
That is the whole argument against "anchor babies". If the parents are here illegally they aren't under our jurisdiction. You may be technically correct due to the green card, but that is something the courts would need to determine, and once his green card is revoked, he loses that protection for sure.
Stop writing and start reading. When you come back, newly informed, you won't look like as much like an idiot as you do now.
You are very ride a d very sadly misinformed. This case may end up in the Supreme Court and tbe law Trump cites is ancient. I think Trump knew it would be reviewed byvSCOYUS so based on their ruling, it can be used to remove the drek from our streets. We have enough morons inciting hate, we don't need people funded by Unwra and Qatar.
Your AI is clogged up with...something. Fix it.
Nor funded by CAIR nor Qatar.
Except there is that little problem, in that he is married to a US citizen.
That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t confer special rights to him.
I agree. Was this so called marriage just to gain citizenship. As Glen Greenwald said President Trump married Melania but not because he wanted her to obtain citizenship, did this man do that. I’m only saying this based on his history and his actions. Notice in Meghan Kelly’s video he wasn’t present at the protest conveniently? Her comparison to The Godfather movie was spot on. I’ll be honest I’m very conflicted on this listening to MK and GG. It is truly a mess. But bottom line is Hamas are a terrorist organization, very organized and funded by Iran. I believe it’s almost an impossibility to negotiate with terrorists. It’s very unfortunate on the human side of this for this man to be separated from his pregnant wife, and perhaps deported but as Meghan said he should have thought of that before opening his mouth. Did he bring this on himself? I’m not sure this is a good analogy but I reference Julian Assange and what he did and the years of suffering being separated from his family. The sacrifices he had to make in his belief he was doing the right thing.
I would very much like to know if this is a marriage of convenience. As I understand it, he intends to give the impression that the pregnant woman with him is his wife, not his lawyer. So he’s not above mendacity for the cause.
Proud and grateful to say I am no lawyer. Is there a law that prevents the government from removing resident aliens for any reason at any time? Can they just declare a legal resident undesirable and kick them out? I don't know. But that's not what the government is doing in Kahlil's case.
The executive is openly declaring Kahlil an active criminal and denying him due process because he is an alien. In doing so, they are charging at a constitutional brick wall, and they are only going to knock themselves out.
If Kahlil is "clearly engaging in menacing/harassing misbehavior and compelling others to do so," swear out a warrant. I haven't seen or heard a shred of evidence to support this widely held contention, and I've spent hours looking for it. Neither, despite his many ill-advised interviews and on-camera appearances, have I discovered a recording of Kahlil "organizing" protests or "supporting Hamas," per se. If you have a link to something besides, "The gummint propaganda machine says so," I am eager to review it.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because this is America, it doesn't matter how stupidly Democrats censored political speech when they were pretending Biden was president, it is still a crime for Republicans to do the same thing. Because this is a nation of laws, we may punish a man for what he has done only after we have proven that he did it. We have a Constitution, and President Trump's first duty is to protect, defend, and uphold it. Will someone read the Fourteenth Amendment aloud to Mr. Trump, please? Might want to review the first thirteen for him as well; they are the part of the Constitution that matters most.
Good comments.
"Menacing behavior" is free speech.
So I can organize and direct others to conduct criminal activity under the guise of “free speech”?
The only criminal behavior that Megyn cited was Khalil, as spokesperson for group, demanded that Columbia University divest from Israel, or their barricaded sit in’s would continue. A type of extortion. The same kind students also did in 1970’s and 80’s to Universities across the country to divest from then, apartheid South Africa. No students were arrested for that speech against South Africa. But they are when it’s Israel. Government, IMO, was right when they didn’t arrest before and wrong now. Because they are choosing which speech is acceptable and which is not. Which violates 1A.
See how well that worked out in Zimbabwe and soon South Africa?
Pretty soon the Boer farmers will be forced out and then no more food. Not our problem. I hope many South African farmers will take Trump’s invitation to move to the USA seriously and then come here. They are hard working, skilled, modern farmers who are mostly Christians.
That "barricaded sit-in" is a violation of law.
No, absolutely not. The 1st Amendment only warrants unabridged speech or criticism of the government, not of private citizens, ethnic groups, or religions. You have it very wrong. Read the 1st Amendment and hopefully you will understand why you are wrong.
No its not. Try it in a public place and see what happens to you.
Students did public sit in’s to Chase and Barclay’s in 1960’s to protest those banks investments in apartheid South Africa- in mid to late 1960’s. Nothing happened to them. Tell me why that previous sit in was not prosecuted by Feds but one vs. Israel today, is? I’m a Zionist asking you this. But I’m also first and foremost an American, and 1A and my Constitution came along long before the State of Israel.
As more Americans wake up, I think this whole thing is going to backfire on Trump. A self-own he didn’t need to do.
If the “menacing behavior” causes someone to reasonably fear for their physical safety it is assault. The physical touch is battery. Assault by itself is a crime, no contact is needed.
Please. Assault, for example, would be menacing behavior. It’s not free speech.
apples and oranges
If the Dems think this helps them they are batshit crazy. Oh wait, they already are.
Thanks for your measured take, Sasha. I’m Trump voter, support Israel right to exist, and currently come down on side of Khalil, 1A.
The reason for this is Trump has stated he’ll go after ‘antisemitism’ posted on socials from student visa holders and non citizens, using an AI online tool. I think antisemitism is vile. But it’s also protected free speech.
Is Khahil the ‘poster boy’ for revving up online speech policing? That’s what I fear. Because cracking open that door can lead to bad places, over time.
If you don’t think so, just look at what UK uses against its own citizens (Online Safety Act) to police ‘Islamophobia’. Cops show up at door, fines, etc. that is wrong, too.
We should all resist normalizing these kind of tools. Because one administration’s hate speech, can be a 180 on a next administration. Imagine for a moment the Israeli student who is in USA on a student visa and that person served in the IDF. That person could be said to be a terrorist and kicked out.
I wish more of us on both sides could see how much our cognitive dissonance blinds us to how this precedent, can be stretched in future, to police speech we think is benign and okay.
This case presents, IMO, a banana peel that we might slip on. I have common cause with the Left on this issue at present moment because I’ve yet to see evidence of crimes committed. Just ugly and gross speech, that I begrudgingly accept is 1A protected.
Please show us where the 1st Amendment states that a "peacable assembly to petition the government" applies to criticism and calls for violence against private citizens.
Also, how in the world does breaking and entering, vandalizing, then occupying a public or private space is "free speech"?
Show me where Khalil did that and you’ve made your point. Absent that, your cognitive dissonance has you applying all the antisemitic behavior on Columbia campus that you’ve seen, onto this particular person.
That's a very valid point and should be evaluated by DHS, DOJ, and the courts.
Jeff, I don’t like defending this guy, at all. His beliefs and speech make my stomach turn. I’m just wanting to see the Constitution be upheld as we wade through the antisemitic behavior that has reared its ugly head since 10/7. As much as I don’t like antisemitic or other racist speech, it is still 1A protected.
Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your measured and rational approach to this issue. I will admit that I have not been following this issue closely and so I don't know if Khalil's advocacy extends to Final Solutionism. I am probably more focused on the effect his advocacy has on private parties and the campus. He's not a citizen and even with permanent resident status, he is here at the convenience of the republic. His green card can be revoked for many reasons with misbehavior or incitement to riot or violence being a very good reason to deport him.
Personally I think it’s too early. I am waiting to see what evidence there is against him. If you watched the Megyn Kelly comments she said his lawyers are trying to keep the school from giving all the evidence to the government. That leads me to believe there is more to this story than we’ve been told.
Totally agree. I think it will be shown in due process that Khalil crossed the line, but his case is being used as a pretext to create speech codes against anti-Israel opinion. I disagree with Sasha that anti-Israel MAGA constitutes anti- Semitism. They just feel (correctly) that it should be MAGA not MIGA. You can't have both. No "special relationships". Not with Israel. Not with Britain. None.
Nobody has mentioned that KM went from a student visa to actual Green card holder in 2 years. Isn't that way out of sinc with normal requirements? If so, he is very special!
The dystopian named ‘Patriot Act’ had 9/11 as its pretext. I recall ‘war on terror’ language being used to pass that law in Oct 2001 - which in hindsight eroded the Bill of Rights and our overall Liberty. I’m hearing similar ‘national security’ language used in Khalil case.
Matt,
I share many of your sentiments. But, what it comes down to for me is do we want to share Citizenship (the greatest asset on earth is US Citizenship) with someone who hates? And that goes for anyone who hates Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks, or Gays.... anyone who hates. Why grant him the privilege to stay in our Country and become a Citizen?
I know, it’s a tough one. Hating is constitutionally protected though. I don’t like it, but I accept that by protecting the worst of speech - then my speech (or yours) can never be abridged. This guy likely doesn’t deserve citizenship. But what is preventing his Green Card simply not being re-approved? Rather than arresting /detaining behind bars due to speech. I don’t like the precedent it establishes. It would be of interest to know/see how Khalil obtained and was granted Permanent Residency in the first place.
Matt, your reasoned defense of Khalil is basically where I am, except for the following. To me, something is rotten in Denmark, as follows.
Khalil came here on a student visa in 2022. In 2023, he married a US citizen with whom he had a " 7 year long-distance relationship". He got his green card in 2024, likely because of his marriage, which made him "an immediate relative" of a US citizen. But this marriage is not an automatic guarantee.
Before coming to the US, he worked (from 2018-2022) for the Syria Chevening Program for the British Embassy in Beruit. This program offers a fully funded masters level study in the UK to foreign students. Khalil recruited and interviewed applicants. He also worked for the UK Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund, the descriptions of which online remind me of our USAID. Khalil also apparently worked for or with UNRWA at some time.
He has joined a suit to stop Columbia from providing information it possesses on him to the US government.
What does this sound like to you?
It sounds and smells to me that he came here under false pretenses, and was either let in knowing he was a dirtbag, or he lied and nobody checked. The issue for me now that he’s here - is the Federal government is setting a precedent to punish political speech, that can 1st impact the 13 million other green card holders, and cracks door for this to creep into being applied in future, to citizens. Can his green card status simply not be renewed? Rather than imprisonment.
Sorry, WilliamD. In these United States one can’t punish someone for ‘who they are’. But you can for crime, or speech that incites crime. The closest actual crime I’ve seen (so far) on this case is Khalil as spokesperson for group that stated they would not stop their barricaded sit-in at Columbia University until the school divested from Israel. Other countries you can punish for being gay (like Iran) or wrong speak (like UK). But not here.
💯
Hey Matt,
be careful celebrating any Irish songs this weekend that may be in support of Ireland lest you be arrested for activities aligned to the IRA, a designated terrorist organization.
26+6=1.
I don’t care for Mr. Khalil and I have my suspicions about him . But so far, my impression is he’s being detained and threatened with deportation for expressing opinions that the administration dislikes. I don’t like them either and I wonder why this man was given a green card.So this is a difficult one to respond to . I am getting more than a bit tired of some of the Khalil defenders acting like anyone who thinks Khalil should be deported is a fascist. Still, unless it’s shown that this goes beyond expression of despicable opinion, I think a legal wrong may be in the process of being committed.
Jeff, I don’t give a damn about the guy; I worry very much about censorship and playing favorites for one particular group. It’s DEI all over again when you give extra benefits, in the guise of protections, to one particular group (ie Jewish people) instead of all groups. No has given Christians and Catholics similar protections snd we are definitely under frequent violent threats and actions. Research burned churches.
Haha, yes brother, I’ll be careful. Walter Kirn podcast w/ Tiabbi talked about his time at Oxford sometime in late 70’s/early ‘80’s. Told story of UK buddy w/ Irish heritage went to pub one too many times to play/sing Irish tunes. This at height of the ‘Troubles’ (North Ireland). Kirn didn’t see his friend for 3 days, and learned upon his return he had been jailed/detained by UK police. This lack of habeas corpus event to close friend is what helped transform him into 1A defender upon return to States.
Indeed. Philly in the 1960s and 70s was under surveillance for similar censorship.
You’re 100 percent correct- thank you
🤣
A non citizen on a visa is not entitled to the same protections as a citizen, a non citizen organizing terrorist marches and more is entitled to be deported
Funny you never hear about this happening to Americans over seas. Reason - they absolutely wouldn't tolerate it for a second. Quick story. Back in the early 80's while in the US Navy, we had a port call in Greece. A couple of officers on the way back to the ship (yes, alcohol was involved) saw a Greek flag flying from a government building and thought, "gee, what a fun souvenir to have" and shimmied up the side of the building and hauled the flag down. Unfortunately they were spotted by a policeman who arrested them both. Everyone thought the Greeks would say, "OK, crazy Americans, pay a fine and go back to your ship". No, they were really pissed and they charged them with a serious crime, quickly tried them and sentenced the one with the flag to 10 years in prison and the other guy, who was just standing there, 1 year in prison. They rotted in jail for a while until our government was able to secure their release (only because we have a "status of forces" agreement with the Greeks for military on active duty). So, the reality is that just getting deported is a good deal for Khalil compared to what would happen to him in other countries.
Just wondering what happens to a person if they are in an airplane or in an airport and say they have a bomb (but really doesn’t) are they protected by the 1A???
He's entitled to the same constitutional protections while in the country. He's just not entitled to stay in the country. Asking a guest to leave the house (or country) isn't a violation of his rights. Deportation is for those who don't want to leave voluntarily.
No. A non citizen is not a citizen and is entitled to nothing. They are guests. Guests misbehaving are shown the door not elevated to citizen status so they can fuck us with our own laws.
Thanks for making that distinction.
I also side with Kelly. If he were a citizen, you have one set of considerations. But he is not. His presence here is provisional. He may in fact have lied on his green card application about his association with terrorist organizations. This was the basis we have used to deport Nazi concentration camp guards who lied on their entry and citizenship applications. He has celebrated the 10/7 atrocities, espoused the cause of Hamas and Hezbollah, and served as spokesman for an organization (CUAD) that calls for the destruction of Western Civilization, violently disrupted Columbia academic operations, and threatened campus Jews. We don't need him here.
If we want to lose our country to Islam (or China or any other potential enemy) we should just ignore the antisemites and anti-Americans as they propagandize our population like Europe allows to be done to it, especially impressionable young students. Seditionists are trying to convert them to an ideology that subverts the culture and laws of America. We have a Constitution that protects our citizens, but it does not protect our enemies. The British were not protected by the Constitution during the period between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Other non-citizen enemies of America similarly have been deported throughout the history of the country (note that even citizens who violate sedition laws can be imprisoned; every country has laws to protect itself)
None of our laws are meant to be exploited for this country to commit suicide.
Deport this bum
100% correct.
Khalil’s activities frustrate US foreign police and create a national security risk.
The Secretary of State has the power to deport Khalil under immigration law.
I wish the Trump administration would ignore that Judge's order of blocking his deportation. It is an illegal action by that judge. Deport this Jihadist.
They can continue to detain Khalil. Meantime, they can test the lower court judge's decision in upper courts, maybe the Supreme Court. The law is very clear on this. The judge is completely wrong. But Trump wants to rebuild confidence in the legal system, even with these cockroaches planted by Dem Presidents in the lower level courts
While I agree in principle, I can't say I'm comfortable for any president to ignore a judge's order. On the other hand, it would be hard to argue that a temporary order of deportation would cause "irreparable harm," when clearly keeping a potential "instigator of terrorism" might very well cause irreparable harm. My suggestion would be to deport and await adjudication.
Many of these district Judges are way out of bounds with their rulings. This issue of deporting a non-citizen is NOT an article three matter. . Some of them should be impeached even if there are not enough votes in the senate to remove. Let it be a shot across the bow.
Do it over Zoom.
All of these leftist judges antagonizing the President and the Executive Branch are just goading him to violate their orders so that the left can endlessly scream “Constitutional crisis!”
Further, the evil left would like to impeach President Trump again if given the chance, and violating a judge’s order, no matter how ridiculous the order, would be their basis. President Trump knows this, that’s why he is following the law and will continue to do so.
You essentially provided my response to your post. If the executive branch is over reaching or what ever congress deems impeachable, they can do that. These judges are over reaching. Since we do not have enough votes in the senate to remove and barley enough to actually impeach, eventually Trump will have to ignore and/or force the SCOTUS to intervene. The only court that should be able to do Nation wide injunctions should be the SCOTUS. There already is a "Constitutional crisis" and it is emanating from a lot of these leftist district court judges.
I agree. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the leftist judge shenanigans.
This seems inherently logical. Thus, the argument will prevail
Thank you for the conciseness of your post. It also makes me contemplate if Rep Omar can be charged for immigration fraud and stripped of citizenship and immediately deported back to Somalia.
Sasha, this is not complicated: the free expression of virtually any idea, even support for a terrorist group is permissible, be it on a college campus or even Sasha Stone's Free Thinking. But violence, acts of intimidation, vandalism, the occupation of buildings, blocking traffic--all of which, and more, happened at Columbia-- is not permissible, and must be punished. Insofar as Khalil, and any other foreign student, is in any way implicated in those illegal acts, they are subject to administrative deportation.
We cannot confuse "free speech" with acts that are clearly illegal. What happened at Columbia, and so many other colleges and universities, was not protest, but an attempt to impose, by force, a particular point of view. This can't be tolerated and explained away as "free speech," either at Columbia or anywhere else it happens.
Absolutely correct. This is clearly not about free speech rights for green card holders. It is an attempt to wrap any kind of behavior in the cloak of free speech rights, as long as slogans are invoked in the performance. This is the slippery slope we need to be concerned about.
I agree with you, Pacificus. Now, can the government show that Khalil committed these crimes? I’m unsure that they can, and that’s in part what makes this problematic. I sure wish government would show actual crimes committed, to be detaining a green card holder.
It’s entirely possible that Khalil did not physically participate in the vandalism or occupying of buildings. Andrew McCarthy’s article correctly points out that his leadership role is similar to crime bosses who direct people to commit crimes. Lack of physical participation does not necessarily exonerate him.
I’m not sure I buy the mafia boss analogy. We are talking about trespassing in Khalil case, as far as I can tell. Mafia bosses direct much more nefarious (felony) activities.
Maybe so. But McCarthy is right to point out that mafia bosses cannot invoke free speech to excuse their participation. Such as, I didn’t actually do anything, I just used my free speech to direct illegal activity.
All I need to see is one pic of Khalil in a building, one video of him harassing a student, one shot of him somewhere he was not authorized to be, etc. --and he deserves to go. As an acknowledged leader of the Free Palestine protest at Columbia, it seems reasonable to assume he is implicated in the criminal acts committed in its name.
They refuse to distinguish between unwelcome speech and illegal actions.
I have seen you repeat the same points on Racket and here, Matt L. and I do appreciate your staunch support of 1A. I would urge you to listen to Megyn's pod from yesterday as she speaks about this first thing so you don't even have to listen to the rest of it.
I did listen to all of Megyn’s argument, as well as Glenn’s. Megyn point is that Khalil was the spokesman for the group that did the barricaded sit in at Columbia campus. And further, stated the sit in would not end until Columbia divested from Israel (a type of extortion). There is in fact a long history of this ‘extortion’ by student sit in’s in America’s history. You can read about how students did this to drive divestment from apartheid South Africa in 1970’s and 80’s.
https://everytownsupportfund.org/history-of-divestment-on-college-campuses/
The chilling aspect (to me) about this is the government is choosing which political speech to punish. I’m a Trump supporter. But what if a radical Biden type gains power in future? Then the precedent is established to do this in reverse. Israel (who I support) is somehow a sacred cow that can’t be scrutinized. That’s what this detainment is broadcasting. If for example Khalil was protesting for extortion divestment of Russia, or China - do you honestly think he would be detained in NYC, and then taken to Louisiana? It’s because it’s Israel, and Trump has said through this action that this country is off limits.
I don’t like Khahil’s speech. I like even less the Federal government (and the barrel of its gun) taking sides on which speech is okay and which is not.
Matt, thanks for your thoughtful comments. But I do not see a slippery slope issue here. You suggest this is about "the government choosing which speech to punish." It isn't. It's about acts of violence, intimidation, and other illegal acts. Insofar as any foreign student advocating for any cause employs such tactics, they are subject to deportation. At least that's how I see it. That's the bright red line here.
Free speech, yes. Violence, intimidation, the occupation of building, etc.--no.
Well said. I find it very difficult to equate what has and is still happening emanating from universities peaceful protests. Just like the supposed peaceful protests during the summer of love. I see it as mob mentality that uses intimidation and destruction to scare civil society. Their arguments include anti American vitriol that creates chaos on our streets. They are rarely peaceful. To add insult to injury they are making demands about two other nations as they plant flags and tear down American flags. They make their demands through chaos to our government as they wear masks symbolizing terrorists from another.
Anyone who cannot see these actions as destructive to our civil society are willfully blind. We only need to witness Europe to see where this is heading. Meanwhile Quatar is funding the universities to the tune of billions. I read that at Columbia 50 per cent if students are foreign. What are we doing?
Glenn Greenwald has been anti Israel from day one. I am paid subscriber to his podcast. I don’t agree with supporting mob mentality on principle because what we have witnessed is not peaceful protests. The troublemakers can be sent home where their speech and tactics are acceptable. They obviously want to transform the US into their own vision.
You have it 100% right. These Islamists are attempting to conquer the west through guile and manipulation because they lack the militaristic power for forceful expansion.
We are losing this war because much of the west’s leadership have been bought off. The only possible solution here is a harsh rebuke. Something brutal enough for the Qataris, Iranians, and Saudis to understand that we aren’t the EU. We will not tolerate this shit no matter how clever they are or how corrupt our politicians are. They can clutch at free speech pearls all they want, but to be perfectly frank, I do not give a fuck.
Throw this guy in Gitmo and then throw another 1000 of them in there too. Turn out the lights like they did to actual fucking Americans for J6.
I say this as a man who has a quarter of his family as Islamic fundamentalists. We are being conquered from within and as Americans if we do not stand up and stop this today we will fall just like Europe has.
You are correct. The islamists are very clever in the way they use Western (I.e., Jude’s-Christian) principles and values against us. They take money from us, because we love our neighbor, and they use it to buy cement for tunnel building and rockets for terror. They test our constitutional rights even when they are not entitled to them as non-citizens. They buy off homely, misfit American girls to do their bidding because they know these girls are lost souls. It’s truly disgusting.
If Khalil occupied a university building illegally he’s subject to be held without trial for at least 4 years…precedent was set by the Biden administration
What precedent will Trump set when the shoe is on other foot and Israeli student in USA who served in IDF is shown the door for being part of a ‘terrorist’ organization? I say think it through before we set new precedents we might later regret.
Actually that was a bit tongue in cheek…my point being, far worse was done to actual citizens who were waved in to the Capitol by people “at least dressed in police uniforms”. As to your question if a non-citizen supporter of Israel occupied a university building illegally he’s should receive the same treatment. There’s no “gotcha” here.
Apparently organizations that terrorize others on a deadly and regular basis like the CIA, M6 and Mossad don’t count as terrorist organizations…. Lol.
Well, you’d first have to get an official declaration that a sovereign countries military is a terrorist organization. Not happening.
Very clever. I’ll bet Justice Howell wouldn’t be so quick to classify him a terrorist like she did the J6ers.
If this kind of "speech" were not so common since the days of St. George Floyd, I would be more inclined to regard this more as a matter of free expression. However, given the antics of the ACLU, the SPLC and the fact that most of this arises from the American Left, I now see it as incitement.
Certain peope and groups will not learn until clear examples are made and standaards are re-set. Adios Mr. Khalil.
Khalil wants to destroy America. What’s so hard about this? Get rid of him now. And never let him back in. I bet he applauded the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, speaking of free speech.
Sasha
This is a close issue. You outline both positions very effectively.
Well written.
Agreed. This is a really great analysis of the arguments. I’m conflicted the same as Sasha. I don’t give a damn about this Khalil character. What’s important is the competing principles of protecting free speech as balanced with protecting Americans such as Jewish Columbia students from violence and threats as they attempt to get an education.
The main point is always that setting a bad legal precedent now can be weaponized against you when the political climate changes later.
Indeed. And that is why this weekend the Irish need to be careful singing Irish songs lest the government arrest them for support of the terrorist designated IRA group.
Exactly - and imagine now Irish catholic Americans would have supported English air strikes against residential neighborhoods killing thousands of children in Northern Ireland because terrorists were hiding there?
Excellent comment/insight.
Yes, but a good legal argument in the future can always show the differences in any two situations. And the Supreme Court is, technically, not bound by a precedent that simply doesn’t work anymore. So I’d say do the right thing now and let the “but we don’t want to set a bad precedent” argument go by the wayside. The Supreme Court can overrule itself as needed. Consider the Court’s behavior in two huge cases: National League of Cities (1976) and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). Those were Commerce Clause/10th Amendment cases, where Garcia overruled the National League of Cities case just NINE years after National League of Cities was decided. Had the political climate changed between 1976 and 1985? You betcha. This is just how it works. Send that guy home now and worry about how the “precedent” will pan out later. We soon won’t have a country if we don’t protect it now.
We’ll have a totalitarian country that punishes speech
Not close in the law, only in Sasha's heart. The law is as clear as can be. Read Section 8, 1227, Item 4.C.
I'm squarely on Megyn Kelly's side on this. This is not primarily a speech issue but an issue of who we want to invite into our country. As many have pointed out, a Green Card holder does not have all the rights as a citizen and can be deported if he represents a social or political group that espouses or endorses terrorist activity. Khalil clearly supports terrorist activity if it will help his cause.
But it's not so much what he says but who he is. He is not some random student who got caught up in the moment and said something offensive. He is a political organizer and operative of a destructive ideology. Nobody from a foreign country has a right to immigrate to this country. I'm not against immigration but we should be very selective on who we allow to come here. There are millions of decent people all around the world who are desperate to come to this country and would be a benefit to us. Why in the world would we ever want to invite someone like Khalil?
Deporting Khalil has no effect on the free speech rights of American citizens. As a citizen you are free to support any number of odious causes but I see no reason why we should want to import supporters of terrorism.
The takeover is happening at an ever accelerating pace, make no mistake about it. It is an antiWestern civilization, antiAmerican op and those who shut their eyes and ears to it, much less embrace it, are dancing with the devil.
https://x.com/AmyMek/status/1898649454632476770
Victor Davis Hanson has an honest take on both sides of the issue.
VDH is always a good choice 👍
It’s the same old story. The enemy using our democracy to overthrow us. He’s the enemy, get him and all his friends the hell out of America.
The "muslim ban" was really about importing people who did not ascribe to our laws and beliefs of freedom of speech and religion from belligerent countries we were actively engaged in battle with. There is good reason NOT to allow immigration of people from countries we are having problems with for a variety of reasons. If you can't abide our laws, you shouldn't get a visa. If you can't abide their laws, you shouldn't go to those places. My wife, a feminist, refused to go to middle eastern countries for example. If you cannot be a good guest, you should reconsider going.
I've been wrestling with this since it happened. Here's where I've landed: He is trying to keep his disciplinary reports and academic records private from two separate colleges. The reason for this is that he has broken the law and the only reason he hasn't been punished has to do with money, the left-leaning colleges, and the cowardice of both those places. That seems clear enough to me at this point. Why else fight to hide them in court? My next issue to support his deportation is this: If he had been an American student (especially if he were White, Jewish, or Asian) he would have been kicked out already. I keep hearing about how the Jewish Americans aren't really being hurt by any of this because there are more of them and they have more power. I have no choice as a white person than to know that if I were being harassed and bullied on one of these colleges by a minority, these people would say the same thing about me. It's like you aren't allowed to be afraid or even ask to be provided safety because of your majority. I'm sick of this crap and I will keep standing up for the groups who don't seem to matter. Last, this is a flaw in my self for some people, but I will own it. If you weren't legally born on this soil and have done nothing to help build this society, I don't really care what your rights are. I probably don't think you should have as many as you do. For an American, I will fight for your speech. Call me when you are a citizen. Otherwise, if you can't assimilate and are here to cause trouble for even 1 American, Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
He’s a 31 year old “student” and has a UK security clearance. He is way more than a mere agitator. He need to be deported and never let back in.
I had to like you for that last line, Brandy, well done 🤣