Reply With Quote
Even crazy Ann Coulter thinks this is a reach
"....The Post reported that the names of visa-reliant international students who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests were being gathered by a pro-Israel organization, Betar, which wants to make them return home under President Trump.
Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who led pro-Palestinian protests and a green card holder, was arrested over the weekend by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday in a post on X, also sharing a news report on Khalil...."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...r-free-speech/
Even crazy Ann Coulter thinks this is a reach
Lol the tweet is gone.
Here's the article though:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...r-free-speech/
".....When reached for comment by The Hill, Betar said in an email that they “confirm we provide information on jihadis.”
“We also believe naturalized citizens will also soon face consequences as our president has said,” they continued..."
Sure. At this point, what's the difference?
protesting the policies/actions of the government of Israel isn't pro-Hamas or antisemitic as such, Israelis do it every day
but even if it were, political expression is protected by our nominal form of government
if Trump can denaturalize people because they say things he doesn't like, we basically no longer have a cons ution, we have a king
it's super woke to strip people of fundamental rights for what they say
it's cancel culture, turbo-charged
unsurprisingly, Trumplandia seems to have relied on a McCarthy era law that gives State the power to deport noncitizens
This seems to confirm that the Trump admin invoked an obscure Cold War-era law, INA 237(a)(4)(C), which authorizes the Secretary of State to *personally* order any noncitizen to be deported on the grounds that their presence "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."
but but - why didn't ANYONE warn us that trump wanted to be a dictator on day 1????
trump did
no no no
but but WHY didn't you make us BELIEVE YOU!
Man these forum Trump s have scattered like roaches when the lights come on
they'll be back
"you asked for it"
"whatever it takes"
Waiting for their talking points to be handed down.
" free speech!"
--TSAnon
in your own words, how do the facts fit the case?
Bingo!!!
"We got a special procedure for terrorists and he's a terrorist" begs a lot of questions
Once & again you're gonna need the House, Winester.
But leave muh 2nd menmunt alone
And that's the monumental point>>>that 2nd Amendment.
As long as we have that you're at the curb instead of the front door.
These are specified in INA § 212(a)(3)(B) and commonly referred to as Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)
-Who are a representative of a terrorist organization or a member of a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity
-Who endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization
Ok, how do those facts fit the case?
I'm not seeing it
He has acted as a spokesman for an anti-Israel, pro-Hamas student group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest or CUAD.
CUAD says it is "fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization."
CUAD believes that Oct 7 was a “moral, military, and political victory."
CUAD justified Oct. 7 by declaring “violence is the only path forward”.
Khalil was the negotiator on behalf of students who started a tent city on Columbia's campus and who illegally took over a campus building.
Khalil distributed pamphlets of pro-Hamas propaganda, led "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood: Our Narrative." Al-Aqsa Flood is Hamas's code name for the 10/7 terrorist attacks.
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1899501012727353802
Sounds like a guilt by association deal, is Khalil a member of CUAD?
Is it a crime somehow, or otherwise damaging to US foreign policy, to have been a negotiator at a protest?
Is it a crime, or otherwise damaging to US foreign policy, to distribute a counter-narrative at a US university or college?
Most of the facts attested seem to consist of speech, and the guilt of the guy who got nicked on the facts attested seems not well filled in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
