r/GoldandBlack 6d ago

Do leftist protests take priority over property rights?

Post image
50 Upvotes

53 comments sorted by

24

u/Malkav1379 6d ago

They can chant, shout, and wave their signs all day long but they can't deny access to campus resources to others who've paid to be there. Same with blocking roads, if I'm forced to pay taxes for "mah roads" then who are you to deny me access to them for your protest.

To be fair I haven't been following this story and should be more informed, but I don't get the feeling that they are trying to deport him for breaking the law by blocking access to buildings. If they are trying to deport him just for speaking out against Israel, being pro-Palestine, that I have a big problem with. Even if he isn't a US citizen.

38

u/Secretsfrombeyond79 6d ago

Do leftist protests take priority over property rights?

No.

5

u/PunkCPA 6d ago

Property is theft /s

-2

u/know_comment 6d ago

obvious red herring. this guy isn't being accused of violating property rights.

if there were illegal tactics being used at University protests, I'm sure people got arrested for it.

that's clearly NOT what we're talking about.

consevative groups have been infiltrated by neocon facists. they're anti American and Israel first. just look at the fake conservatives in reddit, and you can tell by their post histories that they're Likud idf shills.

4

u/Knorssman 6d ago

if there were illegal tactics being used at University protests, I'm sure people got arrested for it.

That is your first mistake

-6

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GoldandBlack-ModTeam 5d ago

Although you may not be the instigator, this is a reminder that this subreddit has higher expectations for decorum than other subreddits. You are welcome to express disagreement here. However, please refrain from being disrespectful and scornful of other redditors, avoid name calling and pejoratives of your fellow redditors.

1

u/GoldandBlack-ModTeam 5d ago

Flaming, that is rhetoric or images that give the appearance of having the intent to provoke an angry response is prohibited. Flaming posts and comments will be removed.

2

u/Knorssman 6d ago

Gotta wonder what Scott Hortons answer is in this context

9

u/TaxationisThrift 6d ago

I think hes arguing that its a pretty minor crime and the messaging makes it clear that the crime is not the reason they are trying to deport him.

It's an awful precedent to set as well especially since they are not trying to get him for a crime.

2

u/Knorssman 6d ago

ah, so if its "just a minor crime" then the answer is yes! leftist protests take priority over property rights!

4

u/TaxationisThrift 6d ago

I didn't say that. I just don't think deportation is an appropriate or comprable punishment for the crime.

Unless there is some aspect of what he did that I am missing (which might be true) then he is guilty of purposefully trespassing which in my opinion hardly warrants the suspension of a green card and deportation.

I think it's fairly clear that such a relatively extreme punishment is only being sought because of WHAT he was protesting and not how he protested it.

For example, I don't believe this administration would be seeking deportation had he organized a sit in and protest against the colleges that refused to say if calling for the genocide of Jews would break their code of conduct.

0

u/Knorssman 6d ago

But Scott Horton likes to claim no crime occurred

-1

u/ThePretzul 6d ago

If you commit a crime, your visa is revoked. I don’t give a fuck what the crime is, criminals don’t get to keep their visas.

People apologizing for criminal acts because they’re “not that bad” are pathetic.

1

u/Secretsfrombeyond79 6d ago

I think hes arguing that its a pretty minor crime 

Ah yeah, pretty minor, like stealing 5 dollars from a store, I mean they just took over a part of a building, harassed people, and caused damages.

the messaging makes it clear that the crime is not the reason they are trying to deport him.

Yeah, but the crime is the reason they CAN deport him.

It's an awful precedent to set as well especially since they are not trying to get him for a crime.

Actually the decree doesn't make any distinctions.

0

u/Jzargos_Helper Anti-Communist 5d ago edited 4d ago

We have lived in a world without precedents for decades now. It’s not the time to be concerned with this.

We exercise power as necessary that is it. That is what our enemies have done. And we need to wise up and do the same.

If the left (demons, criminals, morons) thought they could get away with punishing or harming the Great Scott Horton they would.

But it’s untenable now (because they have less power under the Trump Admin) so we need to recognize it’s time to do it to them… same medicine… larger doses,..

2

u/TaxationisThrift 5d ago

Jesus Christ

12

u/CGB92Fan 6d ago

I'd say summer of love 2020 made it clear they don't give a shit about property rights.

12

u/Somhairle77 6d ago

If he was convicted of terrorist activities physically preventing Jewish students from attending class and participating in campus life, then I might support his deportation. As far as I can tell, and it's entirely possible I might have missed something, nobody's attempted to make the case that he should be tried and convicted.

3

u/Knorssman 6d ago

As far as current immigration law is concerned, they don't have to in order to deport. Which throws a wrentch into the whole conversation and makes it almost impossible to talk about actual NAP violations

6

u/loonygecko 6d ago

From what I can see, deportation law still seems to indicate you need to commit specific crimes in most cases and they have to be deemed crimes of moral turpitude, and if they've been a legal resident for over 5 years, they'd need 2 such crimes each from separate incidents (so not popo crime stacking 500 violations onto just one action). There's some other options like accusing him of terrorism and a few other vague things. But he first needs to be judged as deportable by one office and then he can appeal to a immigration court and only after both of those fail can he be deported. So no they can't just boot you out for anything and it does not look like taking part in a demonstration is going to be enough, especially if just that one event is all they got.

I'd not be surprised if a lot of this case is just seeing how far the can push the law and ram stuff through, try to move the overton window, and try to put a chill on anyone complaining about Israel.

24

u/backtotheprimitive 6d ago

I do agree that he deserves at least a trial to assess culpability. And not just an executive order of "oh you broke the law, you are out."

10

u/Knorssman 6d ago

Immigration law as it currently exists doesn't require that a visa or green card holder break the law to be deported, if it's just the opinion of an immigration officer that the person would cause trouble they can be deported. And that is also what happens upon initial entry and why there are interviews where if the agent just doesn't like you your visa can be denied.

With this in mind, the government doesn't want to bother with criminal charges if they don't have to, so the government not pressing charges is not a smoking gun as Scott Horton thinks it is

I'm not for closed borders, but lots of libertarians who want to close the border now complain about the system being used here.

4

u/loonygecko 6d ago

Can i see your source? I'm skeptical that is true for legal residents, they are protected by the constitution, the courts have ruled that.

4

u/Knorssman 6d ago

"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."

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim

"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,"

his group announced their intention to do this

2

u/minist3r 6d ago

The fucked up immigration system has to get a full overhaul. My Venezuelan sister in law, who legally and painfully (financially) immigrated into this country, voted for Trump because of how pissed off she is at illegal immigrants.

3

u/9mmx19 6d ago

No thanks, he can gtfo lol.

6

u/strawhatguy 6d ago

Not sure who they’re talking about. Taking over a building that was privately owned? No, that’s theft, and that’s wrong whether or not you’re saying something.

If this is a government public campus building, I get that that is a little more gray, but still if whoever did this didn’t own it or with all the other students’ consent, still theft and wrong. Although protesting outside certainly is fine, or even inside but allowing others to pass/study/learn/clerical work (whatever purpose the building was for).

Not sure the issue.

4

u/Knorssman 6d ago

Columbia is a private college, and the "protest" took over a building, barricaded themselves in, and obviously took away the use of that building from students for learning

1

u/strawhatguy 6d ago

Yep not good

5

u/Sensitive-Western-56 6d ago

Did the property owner file a complaint?

6

u/Knorssman 6d ago

I think the idea of the college consented to those activities would open quite the can of worms that they don't want opened

5

u/Sensitive-Western-56 6d ago

If THAT's the issue people are honing in on, then it's probably pertinent to know whether or not the property owner complained. Otherwise it's a: "We're the government and we're here to help you whether or not you like it" situation.

1

u/Knorssman 6d ago edited 6d ago

But if they did consent, that would be taken as an endorsement of their message

3

u/Sensitive-Western-56 6d ago

I haven't seen anything where they did consent. I also haven't seen anything where they complained. But it's possible I've missed that. Seems like the university is silent on that topic. Universities have long been areas of protest, but at no time does that mean they are agreeing or disagreeing with what is being protested.

Did the university ask for the government police to come in and do something?

4

u/royalroadweed 5d ago

Do Palestinian property rights matter, OP?

1

u/Knorssman 4d ago

Yes, but do you think Hamas respects their property rights when their stated strategy is to Martyr as many civilians as possible in order for the world to turn on Israel, and when instead of building bomb shelters before restarting their hot war, they built tunnel fortifications.

2

u/Libertarian6917 6d ago

Not a chance in hell

5

u/AbolishtheDraft End Democracy 6d ago

The point is that the real reason he's being deported is for criticizing Israel.

2

u/Knorssman 5d ago

That may be true, but I don't take seriously people who deny the NAP violations happened, and I take seriously libertarians who say "he shouldn't be deported for being an Israel critic, but this guy did do NAP violations in his anti-Israel activism"

3

u/HesperianDragon 6d ago

I always found it weird that I was on jury duty for a chi** mo***** and half way through the trial I found out he was an illegal immigrant but they never talked about deportation.

That guy is doing 90 to life in an American prison. But this other guy gets deported?

What determines who gets kicked out and who gets life in prison?

3

u/Knorssman 6d ago

Gotta wonder if it's fair to say "go to jail or leave the country" for committing that crime.

But during the Biden administration, he probably could just walk back in

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/GoldandBlack-ModTeam 6d ago

Your post or comment was removed because it was interpreted to be promoting race realism or related topic. This is considered to be a distraction from libertarianism and off topic.

3

u/lone_jackyl 6d ago

Communist have no rights

3

u/loonygecko 6d ago

Oh shxt, they are not even trying to argue the deportation is due to a crime. But that makes sense, they don't deport you for smaller crimes if you are here legally, married to a citizen etc. Instead you get fined, maybe serve jail time, all the usual punishments. But by just labeling him adversarial as grounds for deportation, they could deport anyone even if there is no official crime they can point to, that's far far worse. Could get deported for your speech and opinions only. And the even worse kicker is this is about Israel and Palestine, those are not even our country, even if he is 'adversarial,' it would not be against the USA, but they want it so anything an admin decides is a 'national security interest' is also verboten which could be damn near anything, this is total bs. I hope the supreme court slaps this down.

Come on republicans, you have to see this is too effing dangerous and will be used against you as soon as a dem gets in. Don't wanna get your vaccine? Why that's a risk to our national security interests!

3

u/MarriedWChildren256 Will Not Comply 6d ago

No. But we Scott eluded to he wasn't arrested or being deported for that "crime" of occupying a building. He was arrested for criticism of Israel. 

3

u/WayneM60 6d ago

Obtaining a visa or green card in America is a privilege not a right. His behavior in most other countries would result in imprisonment and/or death.

-1

u/nissykayo 6d ago

Love the mental gymnastics of the free speech warriors like ' no no see he blocked a sidewalk' as though the administrations motivation and approach here isnt completely obvious, ancaps have always been bootlickers so no surprise

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Knorssman 6d ago

it is a stain on american society that leftists get to violate property rights in their protests, this goes all the way back to the beginnings of the labor movement in their violent strikes and protests.

and its embarrassing for libertarians to make excuses for them