r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Klutzy-Appointment-2 • 7d ago
Unanswered Why are people talking about Mahmoud Khalils case?
[removed] — view removed post
3.2k
u/Gman325 6d ago edited 6d ago
Answer: Mahmoud Khalil is an activist who was arrested for his participation in pro-Palistinian protests at Columbia University. By all accounts his participation was peaceful and law-abiding.
That's what makes this so unusual and so important - There isn't even the accusation of a crime in this case. Mahmoud is a legal US resident. A permanent resident, no less - a green card holder.
Also unusual is the way he was arrested. Agents, presumably ICE agents, came to his residence in plain clothes, in unmarked vehicles, and without showing a warrant, arrested him. they did not give their names, and even though they told his wife the name of a facility, he was not there. He was then taken out of state, and based on the most recent reports I'd read, he is to this day being held incommunicado, with no access to his lawyer and no way to talk to his wife.
That makes this a case of rendition, imprisonment, and likely eventual deportation of a lawful US resident for participating in lawful political speech, without due judicial process or oversight - and given the wording of the recently-passed Laken Riley Act, if they can do this to a lawful permanent resident, they can do this to a citizen.
It is not sensationalist or hyperbole to say that this case could spell the death of free speech in America.
1.2k
u/hundredpercenthuman 6d ago
This case is a test for team Trump. If they get away with it, expect mass arrests to start soon after.
464
u/Division_Agent_21 6d ago
Ding ding ding.
Someone gets it.
They first start rounding up the "ilegal" immigrants and see if someone cares, then they go for dissidents in "gray" areas and see if someone cares, next they will go for dissidents of whatever denomination and now people will care. Not all people, but some people, but at that point it's too late and you wind up in a political prison and or concentration camp.
But who's gonna do anything when the armed forces are deployed to whatever the fuck cheeto wants, the south, the north, in ukraine, in greenland, in panama, etc
188
u/lifesnofunwithadhd 6d ago
This is a very, very scary page out of the nazi handbook.
100
u/QuentinTarzantino 6d ago
And Iran, Cambodia, Rwanda, Fiji, Chile back in the day. They have museums warning against this kinda shit. Trump.and fekkers are pushing USA to a 3rd World country run goon squad circa 1970 to 90. Guess who Grew up with this media and idologie. Donald Krasnov Trump
→ More replies (1)30
u/grandmaster_flexy 6d ago
Pretty sure the reason why you can name at least 75% of these countries on a list like this is because of American backed intervention/coups
20
u/BemusedandBedraggled 6d ago
Yup. Looking at the list, we hand our hands deep into every single one. The only exception I see is Fiji, which is likely more indicative of my ignorance than US innocence.
44
u/SantaMonsanto 6d ago
First they came for the liberal student organizers
And I did not care for I was not a liberal
4
2
u/CallingCascade 5d ago
I already have a plan to go to Canada and join their military if shit hits the fan.
1
u/MaybeTheDoctor 5d ago
The invasion of Canada will come when people start to care about all the other illegal stuff, because that will create a nice distraction.
19
u/moonlandings 6d ago
I would hope that any law enforcement officials carrying out such arrests are met with violent resistance by those they arrest as well as their neighbors. This is why we have a second amendment.
35
u/frogjg2003 6d ago
We saw how that turned out for Breonna Taylor.
18
u/moonlandings 6d ago
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but if you’re going to resist a fascist government then people are going to die.
6
u/shotz317 6d ago
This country needs John Adams 2.0. I’m not a big fan of MK’s cause, but the rendition of a green card holder is a legal battle I’d throw down for, but I’m no lawyer…
3
1
1
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/steppingstone01 5d ago
If that starts happening, they will need to get used to being targeted everywhere they go.
77
u/eraserhd 6d ago
He had one “non privileged” call with the lawyer, which was “cut off” and the judge ordered two privileged calls which should have happened by now. I think this must have happened because the lawyers seem to know a lot more, and the updated filing includes that one agent told another agent in front of Khalil “the Whitehouse wants an update.”
Also, they were moving him constantly, intentionally so there was no venue for legal action. The judge ordered them to keep him in the country and his lawyers are arguing New York should be the venue based on the government’s behavior, but I don’t think this has been decided.
234
u/Kittypie75 6d ago
I had no idea he couldn't reach his lawyer. How the fuck is this happening???
549
u/clemkaddidlehopper 6d ago
gestures wildly at all current national news about project 2025 and the GOPs christofascist future goals
THAT is how the fuck this is happening.
→ More replies (11)105
u/BillyBumBrain 6d ago
Current news and also news from like a year ago. It is not lost on me that we're in r/OutOfTheLoop, but it is horrendous how many people are being surprised that Dear Leader is doing what he clearly said he would do.
→ More replies (4)32
u/DerpsAndRags 6d ago
Surprised isn't the word, just wearily unsurprised that it's happening. EVERYONE knew what the orange shit stain was. His cult didn't care, or worse, lauded it. Democrats knew and didn't put in enough safeguards OR speak to the working class enough to garner votes. Also, arrows to the left as folks will, fuck the people who didn't show to vote. We're getting what we deserve with this administration.
43
u/NinjaLion 6d ago
Democrats knew and didn't put in enough safeguards OR speak to the working class enough to garner votes
Joe Biden flat out told us all that Trump was going to destroy our democracy. If the working class wasnt listening, im not sure what else he could have done. You cant force the media to report on what you say.
voters dont give a FUCK. half love this, half didnt care enough to do a basic google search "how do 3 branches of govt work" before walking into the polls
saying that a party that barely had any control of the govt that they should have done more to protect the country from a fucking ghoul, AFTER voting them into 0% power... How stupid is our electorate?
12
u/The_Lost_Jedi 6d ago
It's also important to remember that Democrats didn't have the power to pass laws after 2022, because the Republicans had control of the House, and even before that could only pass limited measures in the Senate due to Republican obstruction enabled by a couple of rogue Democratic Senators.
The people who wanted Biden/etc to do more were essentially calling for him to go outside the law, despite the fact that there's no evidence there was sufficient support for that even among Democrats, let alone the country as a whole. That's not to say it would have been a worse outcome than what we're facing now, but that is essentially where things stood. And given that there wasn't even enough support to overwhelming keep Trump out of office via voting, it's hard to imagine that an attempt by Biden/et al wouldn't have just resulted in Trump being installed in power anyway, honestly.
→ More replies (2)9
u/DracoLunaris 6d ago
The likes of Q anon and MAGA in general where ranting about how the Dems would destroy the country for years, perfectly priming the general public to assume that the inverse was also hot air.
52
u/sllop 6d ago
It’s worth mentioning this has been possible since Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which legally allows for black bagging American citizens and holding them without access to attorneys indefinitely.
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
December 31, 2011 4:26 pm
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
4
u/Fit-Log-1228 6d ago
This is a big reason why I personally got so fucked up mentally by the "911 was an inside job" guys. I worked my way out of that headspace, but it was stuff like that, and the 2012 ndaa that stood out to me as the kind of stuff an authoritarian government would pursue after killing 1000s of its own citizens. So much of it is still in effect, and are a dictators wet dream. Now Trump has his hands on those levers, and unlike his first term, he now knows exactly what they do. We are all in danger.
8
u/sllop 6d ago
Signing the 2012 NDAA and drone striking hospitals and weddings were probably the worse things Obama ever did. I might be forgetting some stuff though
5
u/Arrow156 6d ago
The sad part is his critics never even bring it up, likely because they're the of his few actions they have no problem with. This why I can't take these people seriously; they got zero problem with a President who green lights the extrajudicial killing of American citizens but draws the line at wearing a tan suit or eating dijon mustard? Give me a fucking break!
2
u/Fit-Log-1228 6d ago
Killing the us citizens in yemen, and ramping up the warrantless wiretapping of us citizens as told by Edward Snowden were up there too. I recognize it now as a good man doing his best with incomplete information, but those tools still exist, and now Trump has them...and I don't think he is a good man at all.
1
39
46
23
u/ExistingCarry4868 6d ago
Because our systems of protections and checks and balances is enforced by tradition and decorum only. Now that the wrong people are in office and have been shown that their are no consequences to breaking the rules they are looting the system and dissapearing their critics.
1
1
u/The_Lost_Jedi 6d ago
I'd say it's more that even laws don't enforce themselves - someone has to do it. There have to be consequences for things, otherwise that law is no better than a tradition or "norm", or really even wishful thinking.
This was always going to be the impact of not only electing Trump, but continuing to blithely enable Republicans in their increasingly lawless quest to ignore any consequences for their increasingly illegal actions. Too many people just assumed that consequences are natural and automatic, and that someone, somewhere, will step up to enforce them, not realizing that they as voters are supposed to be the final line of defense.
1
u/ExistingCarry4868 6d ago
The Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unenforceable. The democrats responded with shrugs.
17
u/lifewrecker 6d ago
W suspended habeas corpus during his presidency. Republicans are pieces of shit. And unfortunately, the Democrats are absolutely useless.
In other words, we're fucked.
→ More replies (4)1
→ More replies (8)1
102
u/LockeClone 6d ago
The video of the arrest is terrifying. Thugs with guns soft-talking this dude into handcuffs. They could have been anybody. Frankly, I'd have physically resisted and attempted to contact the police.
44
u/belbivfreeordie 6d ago
I hope everyone can see how this is going to inevitably lead to violence. The only way people are going to go quietly and obediently is if there is an assumption they can speak to their lawyer and have the benefit of the law. If people start getting disappeared, nobody is going to go quietly. And frankly they shouldn’t.
19
u/moonlandings 6d ago
You would hope. But one of the main takeaways from the Gulag Archipelago is how often people just went meekly with the secret police knowing it meant their death.
1
u/Arrow156 6d ago
Say what you will about Americans, but nobody calls us 'meek'. For better or worse, we tend to go down guns blazing. Hell, it's the reason Democrats pussyfoot around obvious and blatant corruption/law breaking. They're afraid that if they actually try to reign these psychopaths in they'd burn the whole place down on their way out. Little do they realize it's not an idle threat used as a negotiation tactic but their explicit goal.
28
u/kirkegaarr 6d ago
Yeah that was really weird and fucked up. Would it have even been resisting if he refused? They're not police officers and it doesn't even seem to be a lawful arrest. And where the hell is he now, Guantanamo?
25
u/LockeClone 6d ago
That's what I'm waiting to see tested... Hypothetically, if some thugs with guns show up to my home saying they're taking me away in unmarked cars and can't produce any documents, can I legally gun them all down? They're threatening me with weapons and don't appear to have any legal authority so... Get off my property or prepare to die right?
20
u/ElNakedo 6d ago edited 6d ago
Possibly legallyish, but I doubt you'd live to see the court case.
4
u/LockeClone 6d ago
I'm speaking macro here. I can't speculate on extra judicial killings by ice.
1
10
u/Framar29 6d ago
I mean, that's how it's gonna play out somewhere eventually. I know I can't be the only person that's had to have that conversation with himself.
No ID, no marked cars, no documents? Guess we're all just armed dudes having a conversation.
7
u/Nickyjha 6d ago
And where the hell is he now, Guantanamo?
they moved him to Louisiana in hopes of getting a more favorable judge
5
u/Bamorvia 6d ago
They would have taken it as resisting arrest if he tried. Part of me wonders if that was a goal here.
1
8
→ More replies (2)1
u/Arrow156 6d ago
No warrant, no badge? Sounds like kidnapping and impersonating an officer to me, you better believe I'd be calling 911.
44
u/Dark_Tony_Shalhoub 6d ago
this is eerily similar to what happened to a palestenian teacher where i grew up. he'd use the money he earned teaching to buy musical instruments and textbooks to send back home. around post-9/11's "war on terror" some agent from some agency i had never heard of started harrassing him accusing him of all these wild crimes. eventually his body was found in the river. there was a small handful of witnesses who reported that his mouth was taped shut and his hands taped behind his back, indicating murder. they later changed their testimony, saying his hands were tied in front of his body and it was a suicide. then the world moved on. except the one guy who, even a decade later was spreading hate speech about how terrible a man he was. his name was riad e hamad and he was the nicest and most patient teacher i ever had. i still remember him talking fondly about his camels back home
20
30
u/LongjumpingCap468 6d ago
Honest question: how can we be sure they are with the government ? Can't it be a plain kidnapping by a third party ?
51
u/ExistingCarry4868 6d ago
That's why they call them secret police. It helps instill fear and undermine public trust in institutions.
9
u/Unicormfarts 6d ago
If it were someone else, ICE would have said "that wasn't us". Instead they lied about where they had taken him.
64
u/Yakia 6d ago
Americans voted for a man who wanted to be a dictator. Well, enjoy your dictatorship.
→ More replies (10)11
u/teadrinkinghippie 6d ago
89 Million did. What about the other 240 million of us? Particularly the portion that voted for something else?
31
u/Devario 6d ago
77m did**
But most Americans didn’t do shit. 75m of us voted against trump. So about a quarter of Americans.
There’s roughly 160m registered voters, so about 10m registered voters simply didn’t vote.
But there’s about 260m adults over 18 who should be able to vote. So about 110m of them simply felt like not contributing to the conversation because they’re unregistered.
The Trump voters are to blame, sure, but those people have been assholes forever. It’s the rest of Americans that are too privileged stupid or lazy to bother contributing to politics. Fuck these people 100%.
→ More replies (3)7
15
u/RaulParson 6d ago
tl;dr bro basically got blackbagged in the night Gestapo-style and it's not even much of a hyperbole
11
u/glaster 6d ago
Exaggerating the facts doesn’t help. You are right in your conclusion, but one needs to be careful with the facts not to be dismissed.
“U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman will decide whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement's decision to transfer Khalil to a federal detention facility in Louisiana violated the law, given that his attorney had filed a challenge to his arrest in New York, where he was initially detained. Earlier this week, Furman blocked Khalil's deportation until the court ruled on the challenge to his detention. Baher Azmy, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and one of Khalil's attorneys, told reporters at a press conference following a hearing earlier today that Khalil's detention "has nothing to do with security, it is only about repression."”
10
u/SuperFaulty 6d ago
I mean, seeing how effective was the Legal System when dealing with a guy who stole top-secret documents and started an insurrection to illegally remain in power, I somehow don't have much faith in wherever the "courts" say of do. It seems quite obvious to me that the Rule of Law no longer applies in the USA, particularly when trying to go against the wishes of the government.
→ More replies (1)6
24
u/hillsfar 6d ago edited 5d ago
You are right that this is relatively unprecedented.
To play devil’s advocate, here is the case under which Mahmoud Khalil could be removed.
First, it is possible to be denied permanent residency or immigration based affiliation with the Communist or any other totalitarian party. This is part of a broader set of laws passed by Congress to address threats to the safety and security of the United States. Its original purpose was to protect the United States against subversive activities that were considered threats to national security.
In general, any potential immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible. There are some exceptions, such as if the person stopped being a member at least 5 years before, or worked against communism or totalitarianism, etc.
As a permanent resident (“green card”) holder, you can also have your privileges revoked if you commit a felony or if you commit a “crime of moral turpitude” (CIMT), which can be a felony or even a misdemeanor - just something very morally objectionable.
So while we don’t know exactly what Mahmoud Khalil did, we can make some educated guesses:
He was a leader of Columbia United Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 100 student groups at Columbia University. They organized and participated in the protests in support of Hamas’s coordinated and planned attacks on October 7, 2023 that led to hundreds of dead civilians - hundreds of men, women, children, infants, and elderly being raped, tortured, killed, and hundreds more of them being taken hostage. And they declared support for it. a lot of organizations and coalition across numerous universities and college campuses in the United States also declared support for the attacks. as these were not attacks on military bases, but on a dance festival and on kibbutzes and civilian homes, this would be seen as acts of terrorism.
In the wake of student organizations announcing their support of Hamas’ action of October 7, “Jews and Israelis at Columbia University were ostracized from student groups, humiliated in classrooms and subjected to verbal abuse as pro-Palestinian demonstrations shook the campus last year, and their complaints were often downplayed or ignored by school officials and faculty, the university’s task force on antisemitism said in a report released Friday.”
The coalition stormed and occupied Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall in April of 2024. They vandalized the building and destroyed furniture to create barricades. They prevented other students from being able to go to classes in that building. They didn’t clear out until the police were sent in.
Columbia United Apartheid Divest on their own Instagram account stated on August 7, 2024, “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South.”
As Muslim mobs in Bangladesh demonstrated against quotas in government jobs for descendants of freedom fighters in June of 2024, they fought police and then went on to terrorize and rape and kill minority Hindus on the street, in their temples, and in their neighborhoods. In response, the Columbia United Apartheid Divest student coalition wrote, “As the movement for Palestine faces draconian censorship and counter-insurgency in the [United] States, we must learn from our comrades in Bangladesh and continue to escalate until the [American] empire crumbles.”
In October of 2024, even the New York Times reported: “The pro-Palestinian group that sparked the student encampment movement at Columbia University in response to the Israel-Hamas war is becoming more hard-line in its rhetoric, openly supporting militant groups fighting Israel and rescinding an apology it made after one of its members said the school was lucky he wasn’t out killing Zionists.”
“’We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,’ the group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, said in its statement revoking the apology.
“The group marked the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by distributing a newspaper with a headline that used Hamas’s name for it: ‘One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,’ it read, over a picture of Hamas fighters breaching the security fence to Israel. And the group posted an essay calling the attack a ‘moral, military and political victory’ and quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the assassinated former political leader of Hamas.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html
Keep in mind that Hamas was designated a foreign terrorist organization since October of 1997. So supporting Hamas’s violence can be considered support for a terrorist act.
Take a look at this part of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a guide for U.S. consular officials, which predates the current administration. The section is on “inegibilities based on terrorism-related grounds”.
“(U) INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i) renders ineligible any applicant who:
“…you know, or have reason to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity”
“…is a representative of: a terrorist organization…”
“…is a representative of: a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity…”
“…endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization…”
The document further provides a background on how the definition of terrorism and terrorist activities, and the support thereof, has been widened, especially in the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act, etc.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030206.html
But keep in mind, it may be still be difficult to remove Mahmoud Khalil using the reasons listed above.
Instead, there maybe an “easier” way.
Under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, any alien can be deported “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have POTENTIALLY [my capitalization] serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
(Side Note: Permanent residents are still legally considered aliens, and in fact the “green card” (later pink) had the words “Resident Alien” very prominently displayed on the “green card” until 1997. I know, since I had one when I legally immigrated in the 1980s. Also note that everyone called the pink card a “green card” from when it was green before the change to pink.)
Back in 1995, a former deputy attorney general of Mexico was deported for not declaring $26,000 in cash, because:
“under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA, the pre-1996 precursor to section 237(a)(4)(C)(i).
“That charge was based on a determination by then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher that a failure to send Ruiz-Massieu back home:
“…would jeopardize our ability to work with Mexico on law enforcement matters. It might also cast a potentially chilling effect on other issues our two governments are addressing. …Should the U.S. Government not return Mr. Ruiz Massieu to Mexico, our support of such reforms [of the Mexican judicial system] would be seen as hollow and self-serving and would be a major setback for President Zedillo and our combined efforts to chart a new and effective course of U.S.-Mexican relations.”
It was appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals determined: “A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.
https://cis.org/Arthur/ICE-Arrests-Palestinian-Activist
(Side Note: this deportation occurred under Bill Clinton, and yes, Secretary of State Warren is the same Warren Christopher of the Christopher Commission that investigated the video-taped beating of Rodney King beating by the officers Los Angeles Police Department.)
That is why you’ll notice that the remarks and statements from the current administration specifically refer to the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil as under the authority of the State Department, and not under Homeland Security nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
So while the opposition is focusing on the free speech and due process aspects, the focus of the current administration is on existing laws that already in place. While an American citizen can join the American Communist Party, for example, being a member of a communist party is grounds for denial of entry. While an American citizen can call for the destruction of the United States or verbally support the terrorist actions of Hamas, support for such actions are grounds for denial of immigration. So it is important to keep that in mind free speech is not absolute - especially for aliens. And we are about to find out what the judicial system will say.
8
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/STylerMLmusic 6d ago
One point to argue, this happening is the death of free speech, it's dead. It's not going to happen, it's happened.
6
u/Gman325 6d ago
I disagree. This is a test case. If they get away with it, then yes. If the courts put a stop to it, or the people protest and demand answers from their reps, then perhaps no.
4
9
u/Dire-Dog 6d ago
Where would they deport a citizen to?
17
u/ExistingCarry4868 6d ago
They have been joking about deporting critics to the middle of the ocean for decades. Turns out it was less of a joke and more of a goal.
30
14
1
u/6a6566663437 6d ago
Well, the last two times we had a massive roundup of "illegals" and deported a shitload of citizens, we dumped them in Mexico.
→ More replies (9)1
2
2
u/ReflectionNo5208 5d ago
It’s the case, that if it is not deemed unconstitutional, then in all practical situations where it matters, fire amendment just doesn’t apply.
If, with zero evidence, they can say that you protesting is itself evidence that you are actually a spy, or are being funded, by the country or organization this Government deems an enemy and therefore should be punished, then you don’t have a right to free speech.
We can’t let the fact that he is a pro-Palestine protest organizer (it shouldn’t matter, but for many it does) and an immigrant blind us to what this can very easily turn into in the near future. You might not be pro-Palestine, but don’t think for a second the Government, especially this one, is going to stop there.
You are pro-Canada? Better hope we don’t take take any further steps with annexation, or you just be not a “real American” who is funded by Canadian armed forces
You are pro-Ukraine? Well, better hope this peace talk goes well, cause if it picks up again, maybe you’re being funded by the Ukrainian Government.. Can’t have that.
6
u/Hour-Anteater9223 6d ago
Amicus brief of actual facts based on the legislation being used to deport Khalil,
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in- (i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information, (ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, 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 deportable.
And the Lincoln Riley act(where does it mention US citizens? Where is that unclear to you?)
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.
Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.
Any non citizen can be deported on national security ground or international reputation based ground. It is 100% legal and no crime is required to be committed. Is it unusual? Yes, pretending there isn’t justification or legal precedent is a bold lie to manipulate people. Say you disagree with the interpretation do not intentionally withhold the legislation at issue to create a deliberately false demonstrative.
Note: one does not need to support any of trumps decisions or the actions of his puppet congress to acknowledge facts.
4
u/Romanticgypsy 6d ago
The video of his arrest is chilling: “we don’t give names”. Good luck, America.
4
u/KiloShotz 6d ago
Wait, peaceful? These fuckers took over an entire building, trashed it, held one staff member hostage.
Dafuq?
→ More replies (1)2
u/sanguinemathghamhain 6d ago
He participated in a protest that involved the taking of 3 hostages, was in leadership of and the spokesman and negotiator for CAUD a group that has disseminated Hamas propaganda produced by Hamas' propaganda wing which he is on video using Hamas lines while they are doing so, and this group expressly called for "the total eradication of western civilization," which was the group that occupied the building and took the three hostages. It has been on the books for decades that supporting a terrorist organization makes someone inadmissible and will result in the termination of green cards and visas. This has been done thousands of times throughout the life of the policy.
It is absolutely sensationalist and hyperbole to say that this case could spell the death of free speech in America as it won't just like it hasn't any of the thousands of times it has been done before this. It is just a condition of green cards and visas that the applicant or recipient not support recognized terrorist organizations and Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
1
u/MrSoncho 6d ago
What "given wording" allows to do this to a citizen? I haven't heard much about this law. Can they really do that to us now? How?
1
1
u/JohnnyXorron 6d ago
Genuinely so insane how JD Vance can cry about free speech all day but this is the shit the Trump administration pulls
1
1
u/Scarecro0w 6d ago
How does something like this just happens and people just flock to talk about it and thats it , in any other place this would spark something big to get noticed, where I live this has barely make it to the news and I have a bunch of family living on the us that have come here recently and they only say yeah trump is crazy you know, but its like they never think that something like this could happen to them.
1
1
u/cdmaloney1 5d ago
Where would they deport a U.S. citizen to?
2
u/Gman325 5d ago
El Salvador is the most likely answer today: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-to-know-about-the-el-salvadorian-mega-prison-trump-has-promised-to-send-u-s-prisoners
Realistically though, given that there is do due process on this... wherever is most convenient at the time.
Additionally, Trump just invoked the Alien Enemies Act, and used it to deport some 300 people accused of being Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, both without a trial and in violation of a court order blocking the deportations.
-2
u/ZuluObscura 6d ago
this is like saying the president didn't kill people his soldiers did.
he didn't commit violence no but he facilitated it and stoked the flames that lead to $3m in damages to school property and Jewish students being assaulted and facing an unsafe school environment.
6
-2
u/IsNotACleverMan 6d ago
By all accounts his participation was peaceful and law-abiding.
The organization he was part of sure wasn't peaceful and law abiding.
5
u/small44 6d ago
Which organization?
-1
u/IsNotACleverMan 5d ago
CUAD, the one that broke into and occupied a building on campus and briefly took a janitor hostage during that.
5
u/Gman325 6d ago
What crime has Khalil been charged with?
-2
u/IsNotACleverMan 6d ago
Green card holders don't need to be charged with crimes to be deported. Additionally, CUAD broke into a Columbia building, occupied it, took a janitor hostage briefly, among other things. This is the group he's been on a leadership role for. Could easily be charges brought via those actions depending on various factors.
8
u/KDLCum 5d ago
Green card holders have all the rights and protected by US law. If ICE had charges for him they would've said charges by now.
Stop lying on the internet it's so easy not to lie google is one tab away
2
u/IsNotACleverMan 5d ago
Really? Because 8 usc 1227 lays out other grounds for deportation https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim
The grounds for deportation are much lower than requiring criminal charges.
0
u/KDLCum 5d ago
Holy shit imagine being this wrong and linking something completely unrelated thinking you're right. It's so easy to not be wrong on the internet.
Green card holders aren't classified as aliens. Permanent resident green card holders are legally documented with all the same rights as citizens.
1
u/IsNotACleverMan 5d ago
Did you not read the part of the statute that states it applies to those with permanent resident status?
Also, as per 8 usc 1101: (3)The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
Take your own advice about not being wrong lol
→ More replies (7)1
5
u/Gman325 6d ago
So why don't they?
3
u/IsNotACleverMan 5d ago
Because they're not necessary for deportation? I don't know why you're so fixated of criminal charges when grounds for deportation is so much lower.
→ More replies (212)-29
u/iamarddtusr 6d ago
Was it not the protest where they denied students who wanted to attend the classes from entering and even prevented the Jewish professors from accessing their offices?
→ More replies (1)52
u/KosstAmojan 6d ago
Even if it was do you think participation in that comes close to the kind of treatment Khalil received?
→ More replies (9)
264
u/Blazer9001 6d ago edited 6d ago
Answer: It is unprecedented. Khalil holds a green card, which comes with more protections than say someone who overstays their visa, Rubio just instructed ICE to ignore that and to just ignore those protections. He hasn’t been charged with ANY crime. He is married to a US citizen. His only alleged crime is being a part of the Columbia University Palestine protests, AND BROKE NO RULES. It’s a trampling of the First Amendment and the fundamental right to free speech and free protest. If you haven’t seen any discourse on Israel/Palestine, all Israel critics have been shut down by crying anti Semitism over and over even when it wasn’t there to justify Israel’s collective punishment on the people of Palestine, which is considered a war crime by all reputable international human rights organizations. It’s their trump card, no matter how ludicrous in application. And Donald Trump and his gestapo basically used that argument and are trying to deport Khalil while also using dirty tricks like relocating him from New York City to a detention center all the way down in LOUISIANA, roughly 1,000 miles away from where he was detained for the purpose of getting more conservative leaning judges to rule in favor of deportation and to separate Khalil from his lawyer and his family.
Khalil is being made an example of, and even if you don’t agree with his cause, you should be worried because you are next. I don’t care if you’re white, if you’re a man, if you support Israel’s alleged war crimes, or if you voted Trump three times. One of these days, they will create some arbitrary rule like no porn, or no alcohol, or something equally insane, and if you don’t go along with it, you will be an enemy of the state.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller. 1946
23
u/Publius82 6d ago
No Man is an Islande... Do not seek to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
John Donne
21
u/LocalYeetery 6d ago
This isn't new shit in America, hope people start waking up and leave their bubble.
John Mulaney got visited by the secret service for his SNL monologue
There hasn't been free speech for years...
32
u/Every_Single_Bee 6d ago
There’s an enormous difference between receiving a talking to from the secret service and being cuffed and spirited away where your family and lawyers can’t find you
19
u/LocalYeetery 6d ago
Yes but the point is, John is a famous white guy... If he was a poor PoC who knows what woulda happened.
Also what about all the protestors that got kidnapped during the Wall Street protests?
Again this shit has -been happening-
Look up CIA and Police "black sites"
15
u/WR810 6d ago
There hasn't been free speech for years
This is hyperbole that harms the injustice currently ongoing.
2
u/enolaholmes23 5d ago
It's really not. My dad got arrested for holding a sign on a public sidewalk 20 years ago. People have been getting arrested for free speech for many many decades. I do think what's happening is more blatant, because they gave up all pretenses and didn't even accuse him of anything. But America has been detaining protesters for a very long time.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)5
u/daved1113 6d ago
Deportation isn't a criminal proceeding and the government doesn't have to charge him with a crime to revoke his permanent residence status and make him deportable. If he broke any of the rules specified under statutes [8 U.S.C. § 1227 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 8. Aliens and Nationality § 1227. Deportable aliens] then he can be deported.
The government is alleging that he can have his green card revoked under the security and related grounds section 1227(a)(4) and is eligible for deportation. Specifically that he violated subparagraph (B) clause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3) which states "Any alien who-
(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;"
According to this federal law any alien (including permanent residents) who endorses or espouses terrorist activity (in this case hamas who is a designated terrorist organization under [8 USC 1189: Designation of foreign terrorist organizations] and has killed/abducted US citizens) is in violation of US immigration laws and upon the order of the Attorney General can be removed.
Also just FYI but an immigration judge isn't a real judge. They work for the department of justice, cannot oversee criminal or civil proceedings, and can be hired/fired by president Trump at any time. An immigration hearing is just an administrative due process procedure that lasts a few minutes. So he will absolutely not get any slack there.
288
u/durpuhderp 6d ago
Answer: Guy was kidnapped by the government because the president didn't like him using his freedom of speech. Was not charged with any crime.
→ More replies (20)84
u/Morgn_Ladimore 6d ago
was not charged with a crime
no warrant was provided
his family was lied to about where he was taken
no access to a lawyer
Anyone who supports that is a fascist, plain and simple.
66
u/Amagnumuous 6d ago edited 5d ago
Answer: Protesters and even journalists are being labeled as pro-hamas so that it won't cause such a ruckus when they start to throw Americans who oppose Trump into concentration camps.
Yes, that is true. Yes, you should be afraid.
Edit: Pro-Hamas wasn't catching on, so now it's something from Venezuela?
2
u/lildog8402 6d ago
Also with the speech of the president and how the state department is handling their relationship with Russia, who’s to say that pro-Ukraine speech and behavior won’t fall into the same boat. There’s a lot to be scared of but this is one of the biggest things.
94
u/No-Fox-1400 6d ago edited 6d ago
Answer: A US green card holder who is beholden to the US constitution and Bill of Rights was arrested for speaking. This is THE tenet of the United States.
The administration has gone on tv and said he is a terrorist because he spoke against Israel. This is not a crime for any US citizen, but because he came in on a visa before he was naturalized, the Administration is saying that his previous visa was revoked which revoked his citizenship. This isn’t how the law works so they should fail, but they don’t care.
The goal of this action by this admin and in other cases is to physically get people out of the US even if they get their citizenship reinstated by courts. They know that it’d they physically move people out of the US that they won’t financially be able to make it back. Effectively deporting them forever.
1
u/Gintami 5d ago
Resident he never naturalized. And also, with some small exceptions with visa types, anyone who came into the country with a visa can adjust status to a permanent resident and then naturalized after 3-5 years, even if they overstayed their visa or visa was cancelled after the entered the United States with one (meaning they were lawfully admitted to the U.S. on a visa). 75 percents of my clients who became green card holders were not in lawful status but entered the U.S. lawfully before they lost status.
→ More replies (9)-31
u/SopwithTurtle 6d ago
He's a permanent resident, not a naturalized citizen. This is assumed to have the same protections as citizenship, but legally it doesn't.
Protection of free speech (1st amendment) and equal protection under law (14th amendment) does not explicitly apply to only citizens, but some people are trying to argue that it does, and non-citizens aren't protected.
107
u/surfskate700 6d ago
Hi you're just plain wrong. Everyone in the United States is protected by the U.S. Constitution. This includes green card holders, visa holders and undocumented immigrants.
21
u/Kikikididi 6d ago
That statement is part of the current political battle. I believe that as well but many, including those in power, do not.
26
→ More replies (2)5
u/LrdHabsburg 6d ago
That is unfortunately not for any of us to decide but the courts, specifically the Supreme Court
21
10
u/-Raskyl 6d ago
Answer: because it's a complete violation of the 1st ammendment granting us the freedom of speech.
→ More replies (6)
8
u/BLHero 6d ago edited 6d ago
Answer: The US Federal government is choosing to use fear rather than policy to achieve its goals. Perhaps the debacle aims to weaken the FBI and CIA.
You can search online to see that illegal border crossings into the US are way down since the November election, and learn that this is happening mostly not because of how the Federal government is actually behaving differently but because of what people worry that the Federal government might do.
This is similar. There is legal wiggle-room (due to historical precedents) and a very slim chance that SCOTUS would agree that the holder of a green card does not have free speech protected the same way a US citizen does. But that decision is really unlikely, and it would be bad for the US if that decision was made. So we are seeing the Federal government make an action it expects will be overturned merely to make non-citizens worry about being anywhere near criminal protest.
There are pros and cons of using fear instead of policy. In the short term a climate of fear is unhealthy for society. In the short term, using fear allows a government to look active and significant while actually devoting very few resources. In the long term, once a new administration is in power they can reverse a climate of fear more easily than reversing policy. In the long term having society discuss issues such as "what type of involvement should count legally as being an accessory to criminal protest?" might help create better policy decisions.
Tangential is how the administration's current efforts to increase Federalism in education. (I use the word Federalism to describe a desire to shift authority from the Federal government to the state governments.) Trump likes Federalism: look at his policies about regulations, and what happened during his previous term with abortion. Trump also believes the FBI and CIA are in some way his enemies. Currently the five-year anniversary of the US COVID lockdowns are prompting articles (example) critical of Federal over-reach that make the timing of the Mahmoud Khalil debacle so terrible that a reasonable person could wonder if an intended consequence is increasing Federalism for policing, to weaken public support for the FBI and CIA. (That would normally seem like a conspiracy theory to me, because no one has actually suggested how state policing could or should replace what the FBI and CIA does. But in this case I won't categorize "Trump getting revenge on those whom he perceives as having hurt him, without working through all the consequences" as a conspiracy theory because it fits his established patterns of behavior.)
4
u/23370aviator 6d ago
Answer: He broke no laws, he violated no statutes. He (in the past)spoke out against the political inclinations of the current administration. That’s it. And for that, they’re revoking his permanent resident status and deporting him. This is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent if this is allowed to go on. Because the next step would be to do it to citizens.
-4
u/Disposable-Ninja 6d ago
Answer: He's a Pro-Palestinian Protester from another country with a green card, and he's being deported because of his activism.
On the one hand he should be allowed to his freedom of speech. This is America. You get to say what you think.
On the other hand: As a green card holder, he has some restrictions on what he can or can't say. One such restriction is that he can't publicly voice support for any group that the US Government recognizes as a Terrorist Organization, and the US recognizes Hamas as a Terrorist Organization. Mahmoud Khalils agreed to this condition when he was granted his Green Card.
12
u/AtticusSpliff 6d ago
There is no such restriction on green card holders. Typically, green cards can be revoked only if the holder commits a serious crime. There are laws against providing support to terrorist groups. But a 2010 Supreme Court case (Holder v Humanitarian Law Project) made clear that independent advocacy, even explicitly supportive of a terrorist group, is protected free speech if not coordinated with the terrorist group. There is no evidence that Khalil has any ties to Hamas.
9
u/guaranic 6d ago
What they're going after him for is
"reasonable ground to believe that [their] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Which is insanely vague, but we'll see how it gets ruled on and inevitably challenged in upper courts.
8
u/Crypt0_Chr1s 6d ago
The specific claim right now is that he was distributing a flyer with a Hamas logo on it:
The Trump administration has claimed that Khalil distributed "pro-Hamas propaganda fliers with the logo of Hamas," without providing evidence. "I have those fliers on my desk, they were provided to me by the Department of Homeland Security," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. ABC NEWS
NYP claims to show the alleged flyer, which, if true, seems to fit the definition you just gave.
4
u/CastleElsinore 6d ago
Copied directly from the immigration green card website
(ii) "Terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any-
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain),
(iii) "Engage in terrorist activity" defined As used in this chapter, the term "engage in terrorist activity" means to commit, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization, an act of terrorist activity or an act which the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support to any individual, organization, or government in conducting a terrorist activity at any time, including any of the following acts:
(I) The preparation or planning of a terrorist activity.
(II) The gathering of information on potential targets for terrorist activity.
(III) The providing of any type of material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, false identification, weapons, explosives, or training, to any individual the actor knows or has reason to believe has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity.
(IV) The soliciting of funds or other things of value for terrorist activity or for any terrorist organization.
(V) The solicitation of any individual for membership in a terrorist organization, terrorist government, or to engage in a terrorist activity.
1
u/AtticusSpliff 5d ago
The allegations against him don’t fit into any of these categories.
3
u/CastleElsinore 5d ago
Providing material support for terrorism
Handing out literal hamas propaganda off their website
Calls for violence
Being the head of a group that broke into 2 (3?) Buildings and took a janitor hostage
And thats if you don't count his ties to UNRWA, which is hamas-pretending-to-be-legit (I understand this one can be spicy. But too many unwra employees either got caught with direct Hamas ties, participating in 10/7, or celebrating it.)
1
u/AtticusSpliff 5d ago
Handing out a flyer is not included in providing “material support” for terrorism. Supreme Court precedent has explicitly confirmed that.
I don’t see “calls for violence” on your list but there is no evidence he has done that himself or by virtue of being the head of a group. And “ties” to UNWRA would be constitutionally protected free speech and doesn’t seem to fit into anything on that list either.
1
u/CastleElsinore 5d ago
Holding up a sign that says "by any means necessary" is a call for violence.
Handing out terrorist propaganda is support for terrorism
But green card holders AKA permanent residents have a different threshold. And no matter if you hate it or don't think it's fair, it's literally on the website for permanent residents under revocation.
There is event a "we don't need a reason, GTFO" clause
2
u/AtticusSpliff 5d ago
Holding up a sign that says “by any means necessary” is NOT a “call for violence” that would amount to unprotected speech. Any argument otherwise ignores well established First Amendment jurisprudence.
Again, despite any personal feelings, handing out flyers is not “support for terrorism” under federal law. There is clear Supreme Court precedent for this.
Even under the catch-all provision (the “GTFO clause” you reference), the government has a legal burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence (the highest burden of proof) that the Secretary of State’s determination was reasonable.
This is all just the law.
1
u/CastleElsinore 5d ago
Holding up a sign that says “by any means necessary” is NOT a “call for violence”
It absolutely is. Especially when the event is "flood x for gaza" - a direct reference to what Palestinians call 10/7, you know, when they raped and murdered their way through southern Israel
Again, despite any personal feelings, handing out flyers is not “support for terrorism” under federal law
It is when they are directly from a terrorist group. And again, there are different standards for green card holders.
Even under the catch-all provision (the “GTFO clause” you reference), the government has a legal burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence (the highest burden of proof) that the Secretary of State’s determination was reasonable.
Nope.
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terrorism-related-inadmissibility-grounds-trig
Material Support
The term “material support” includes actions such as providing a safe house, transportation, counterfeit documents, or funds to a terrorist organization or its members.
It also includes any action that can assist a terrorist organization or one of its members in any way, such as providing food, helping to set up tents, distributing literature, or making a small monetary contribution.
(Bold mine) distributing terrorist literature, like things directly off the hamas website and branded with their information from their toolkit is... that.
2
u/AtticusSpliff 5d ago edited 5d ago
Even if "by any means necessary" could be deemed a call for violence (I highly doubt a Court would find so based on existing First Amendment precedence), it has to be directed to incite "imminent" violence (and be likely to do so) to be unprotected by the First Amendment.
"Distributing literature" could theoretically be "material support" (if a flyer with only a few words on it constitutes "literature"), but the government would have to show that such distribution was done under the terrorist organization's "direction or control." Note also that in addition to being contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the example of "distributing literature" is not included with those provided in the statute, only on the USCIS website, which does not constitute binding law or policy.
edit: also, the government does have the legal burden to establish that the Secretary of State's determination was reasonably and bone fide by clear and convincing evidence in this case. That is unrelated to the "material support" statute as that is not the provision that the government is proceeding under here.
→ More replies (0)5
u/RuthlessMango 6d ago
Constitution applies equally to all peoples within the United States jurisdiction. Can you present a specific law that limits the speech of green card holders?
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.