I guess the important question is what activities aligned with Hamas did this fellow engage in? Until that is known it's impossible to say if this is an overreach by Trump and rubio, or if he's a person who should be deported for the supporting terrorist activities.
We have a judicial system that exists precisely to answer these questions. However, despite repeated attempts to utilize that judicial system, Khalil's lawyers have been stonewalled from their charge by the government.
THAT is the most important thing. Everything else is downstream of that -- you cannot have a fair evaluation of any of the things you are talking about without a fair trial, and that's not happening.
Trump's doesn't want the burden of due process to discover the facts impartially because that would ruin the propaganda, he just wants to deport people based on hearsay.
The point isn't to debate whether fascism might be a good thing in some abstract indulgence of moral relativism. Rather the point is for us Americans who have woken up to how our country is being full on attacked to discuss ways we might resist.
For those who aren't familiar, habeas corpus is an incredibly important civil right that effectively allows anyone who is detained to go to court to challenge the detention. Khalil's lawyers state that after they filed for habeas corpus, ICE moved Khalil to Lousiana without telling anyone. Extremely concerning.
> He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment.
The ability of a government to control its borders and control who is within them is about the oldest and most fundamental such state right there is.
Khalil is protected by the First Amendment. That does not give him immunity from the US revoking his green card for any reason it sees fit, especially if he is in the two-year conditional period. The green card adds more steps/requirements, but it is in no way unrevokable, the same as any other visa that the US grants as permission to stay in the country.
The United States has no need or reason to tolerate within its borders non-citizen public supporters of Hamas, which the government officially defines as a terrorist group.
Khalil had to affirm when entering the United States, and again when applying for a green card, that he was not a supporter of terror groups. He, apparently, lied.
> the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
The claim is that he "led activities aligned to Hamas", which is meaningless. I think food and drinking water must be supplied to Gaza as humanitarian aid, which is also something that Hamas thinks.
My public support of this goal, while aligned with Hamas, is not illegal.
"""The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who:
* Engaged in ‘terrorist activity;’”
* Are engaged or are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry;
* Incited terrorist activity with intent to cause serious bodily
harm or death;
* Are representatives or current members of a terrorist organization;
* Endorsed or espoused terrorist activity;
* Received military-type training from or on behalf of a terrorist
organization; or
* Are spouses or children of anyone who has engaged in terrorist activity
within the last five years (with certain exceptions).
"""
The term "terrorist activity" prohibits "Material Support", but does not "activities aligned" with terrorist groups.
28 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 62.6 ms ] threadTHAT is the most important thing. Everything else is downstream of that -- you cannot have a fair evaluation of any of the things you are talking about without a fair trial, and that's not happening.
For those who aren't familiar, habeas corpus is an incredibly important civil right that effectively allows anyone who is detained to go to court to challenge the detention. Khalil's lawyers state that after they filed for habeas corpus, ICE moved Khalil to Lousiana without telling anyone. Extremely concerning.
It's not more complicated than that.
The ability of a government to control its borders and control who is within them is about the oldest and most fundamental such state right there is.
Khalil is protected by the First Amendment. That does not give him immunity from the US revoking his green card for any reason it sees fit, especially if he is in the two-year conditional period. The green card adds more steps/requirements, but it is in no way unrevokable, the same as any other visa that the US grants as permission to stay in the country.
Which should not including exercising a fundamental right granted to him, not only when he became a permanent resident, but whenever he is on US soil.
Khalil had to affirm when entering the United States, and again when applying for a green card, that he was not a supporter of terror groups. He, apparently, lied.
There is US law, linked to by the article, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:... concerning material support, defined as:
> the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
The claim is that he "led activities aligned to Hamas", which is meaningless. I think food and drinking water must be supplied to Gaza as humanitarian aid, which is also something that Hamas thinks.
My public support of this goal, while aligned with Hamas, is not illegal.
> that he was not a supporter of terror groups
No, it does not require that. See https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terror... .
"""The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who:
"""The term "terrorist activity" prohibits "Material Support", but does not "activities aligned" with terrorist groups.
Anyone advocating for his removal themselves on the grounds of speech is being distinctly less American than someone engaging in their 1A right.
It sounds more complicated than that.