It May be Time to Begin Planning a Farewell Party for Free Speech in America

Glad to hear a bit from John! Regarding what he notes, it strikes me a lot that much of what Trump is doing is a monument to a lack of ability to comprehend delayed gratification; we want to deal with some problems like anti-Semitism in elite universities, and we want the perpetrators out NOW, and we don't want to wait for due process to play out. And as John notes, there is also the question of whether this is a question of actual crimes committed, or whether it's simply a matter of the content of his speech.

(for the record, I am 100% in favor of expelling immigrants, legal and illegal, when they are convicted of certain crimes, especially those involving violence or large scale shipments of drugs. But with due process)

Long and short of it is that those who advocate shortcuts in these processes need to be asked a simple question; it's almost guaranteed that at some point, the White House will be occupied by someone you oppose. Are you ready to "take" what that person is going to be empowered to "dish out" if you don't stand for due process and Constitutional rights?

I'm not.

From what I’ve read, Khalil is charged with more than just speaking. The courts will decide, but if what is reported is true, the Secretary of State has the power to expel him.

A New York Times article claims that Khalil has not been allowed to talk with a lawyer privately, so he does not appear to have been charged with a crime. So it's mostly that his views are "incompatible with U.S. foreign policy", which does have some support in a 1952 law, but it also aligns with John's point that what is going on is an infringement of the First Amendment, not actual criminal acts.

Along those lines, I am not altogether against certain "viewpoint" limitations for who can get a visa or citizenship, but if the 1952 law does indeed say that green card/student visa holders cannot say things against U.S. foreign policy, that's an awfully broad brush that, yes, does infringe on the Bill of Rights.

It is for actions he has taken. We will see, though. The courts will decide. If he has taken actions that cross the line, then he could have his green card revoked and be expelled.

The situation isn't clear, but it is too early to claim he is merely exercising free speech. We just don't know if that is all that is going on.

Don, if he hasn't been allowed to speak privately with a lawyer--attorney client privilege--then no criminal charges have been filed, and regrettably, this is, as far as we can tell, about things he's said. Follow me?

What I am talking about is actions alleged in the press. I guess formal charges haven’t been issued as yet, but my point stands. If the allegations are true, it isn’t just a free speech issue.

Time will tell. I am not saying that Trump is above challenging free speech. I think he is a terrible man and especially in foreign policy a terrible president.

But on this one, I don’t think anyone should rush to judgment, not being in possession of all the facts.

Rushing to judgment is about all some people are capable of, at least when it comes to accusations against President Trump.

Mahmoud Khalil is a spokesman for CUAD, an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas. That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B).

@SecRubio: “You should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings… They shut down colleges… We don’t need these people in our country.”

There are also reports of taking over a private building and refusing to leave after causing damage and kidnapping a Columbia janitor. These activities are NOT covered under the first amendment, and for a non US citizen there is no need for an expensive trial if we can just send him back.

Let us also be aware that Margret Brennon was complaining about Khalil's free speech rights being violated within weeks of suggesting that conservatives were dangerous for advocating for free speech. According to her, free speech endorsed by the Hitler regime is what caused the holocaust (sic). The WWII Nazi's were the opposite of free speech, but if you can play with people's emotions with a few buzz words who cares about the facts? I am amazed at the total disconnect from history and from facts that people are willing to fall for.

....it's not exactly a rush to judgement against Trump, IMO. These things have been winding their way through the courts, and many of those courts have issued injunctions for precisely the reasons John Ellis notes. There is a process to be followed, and several courts have ruled that it's not being done.

In this case, yes, we have alleged offenses which are at the local/state level, but without convictions. So first step is to establish that the federal government can act on alleged local offenses when local officials have not (I'm open to the possibility), but since the federal government would be, in effect, federalizing local offenses, step 1 would be to allow Khalil the right (ahem) to an attorney, and specifically an attorney where attorney-client privilege is respected.

This really isn't that complicated, guys. I am, again, open to the possibility that we could expel immigrants for activism in ways that undermine our system of government--communism comes to mind--and I definitely want to expel immigrants, legal and illegal, whose actions endanger us all. But there is a process for this, and if we succumb to a "get them out NOW"/lack of delayed gratification time preference, we are going to eventually end up at the business end of that error.

Bert have you read 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B)? I encourage you to read all of 8U.S.C. 1227 but (B) and (C) should especially be noted. They are under (4). If you look at (2) it lists crimes that require a conviction, but under (4) convinction of the crime is not required. Before saying that the administration is ignoring the law, perhaps we should read the law.

(B)Terrorist activities

Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

(C)Foreign policy

(i)In general

An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

Edit: Here is further info copied directly from 1182:

(3)Security and related grounds

(A)In generalAny alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i)

any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii)

any other unlawful activity, or

(iii)

any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible.

(B)Terrorist activities

(i)In generalAny alien who—

(I)

has engaged in a terrorist activity;

(II)

a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III)

has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV)is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—

(aa)

a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(bb)

a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;

(V)

is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);

(VI)

is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;

(VII)

endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

(VIII)

has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(IX)

is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Additional info for above:

This is from (F) of section 1182(a)(3)

(F)Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

Although 1182 is about what is to be looked at BEFORE they are admitted, 1227 is about deportation and links to descriptions within 1182. The law is clear.

First of all, let's remember that to demonstrate these, you still need to have the process, which is my key point. And that's why a judge stayed any expulsion proceedings.

Regarding the list of possibilities, it's worth noting that it appears the government is only using the "adverse foreign policy consequences", which is weird given that Khalil is small potatoes by any sane standard. No high level diplomatic missions are saying "this young man who used to be a grad student is really throwing things off with regards to our approach to Hamas."

Again, I'm not totally against barring the door to immigrants with certain views, but again... you've got to follow the process, and numerous judges are stating very clearly that it hasn't happened. Let's not let impatience get in the way of very real progress that's possible here.

One other note; Khalil's detention in Louisiana instead of New York reminds me a bit of the Declaration of Independence's complaint "For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences", that is, having the trial venue where a person's support system/family/friends/lawyers/etc.. cannot readily assist them.

This isn't good, guys.

A green card holder doesn't have the same rights as a citizen. I once had a green card, but it is a privilege, not a right. The State department absolutely has authority over such persons.

Also, while this individual might be small potatoes, if he is connected to a terrorist organization as alleged, his apprehension and expulsion sends a message to other such miscreants.

But notice my "if." Yes, there is uncertainty. Because of that uncertainty, this is no time to say, "this isn't good." You don't know that.

The appeals to the Bill of Rights (part of Constitution of the U.S. of A.) is meaningful for citizens. Excepting diplomats, non-citizens here legally at the pleasure (or illegally and hopefully at the displeasure) of the U.S. government, do not have those protections.

The appeals to the Bill of Rights (part of Constitution of the U.S. of A.) is meaningful for citizens. Excepting diplomats, non-citizens here legally at the pleasure (or illegally and hopefully at the displeasure) of the U.S. government, do not have those protections.

The argument is that Khalil was here legally. He was only here legally as long as he did not violate or had not violated 1182. If he had violated 1182 before being granted legal status, then that legal status was granted contrary to the law. Once he violated 1182 after being her legally, then it was totally with in the right of the Secretary of State to revoke his right to be here. The law is clear whether some on this site like that law or not. If others want to have a discussion about changing that law, be my guest, but lets not say that free speech was violated when that is not at all what this was about.