What's interesting is your statement accurately describes their case as presented.
The status quo in law is that once granted entry, a person has effectively the same rights as a citizen. Deportation is contingent on a clear and present danger to national security. But this is mainly grounded in precedent and not explicit in the law (if I…
What's interesting is your statement accurately describes their case as presented.
The status quo in law is that once granted entry, a person has effectively the same rights as a citizen. Deportation is contingent on a clear and present danger to national security. But this is mainly grounded in precedent and not explicit in the law (if I've understood the legal reviews of the case)
So there is a legal case to be made that the law allows this censure, though I hope it does not pass muster.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Granting free speech is a clear and unambiguous line. Once you cross into "undesirable speech" it becomes arbitrary and up to the capricious interpretation of whomever is in office. Today, it's "Hamas sympathizers"....but in the next administration it is not outlandish to believe it could be "Zionist sympathizers".....for example. There's a non-trivial portion of the left that think supporting Israel is "supporting genocide".
The level of uncertainty this would cause in our immigration process would be untenable.
Everyone loves the stick when it's their enemies being beaten over the head. Not so much when it's turned on their allies.
I've been thinking since he was detained that it's so easy for people to not defend this guy - even most elected democrats don't want to be seen as anti-Israel. They don't say something, this guy gets deported, and that sets the stage for whatever this admin wants to do. What's next? Pro-Ukraine protesters get deported?
What's interesting is your statement accurately describes their case as presented.
The status quo in law is that once granted entry, a person has effectively the same rights as a citizen. Deportation is contingent on a clear and present danger to national security. But this is mainly grounded in precedent and not explicit in the law (if I've understood the legal reviews of the case)
So there is a legal case to be made that the law allows this censure, though I hope it does not pass muster.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Granting free speech is a clear and unambiguous line. Once you cross into "undesirable speech" it becomes arbitrary and up to the capricious interpretation of whomever is in office. Today, it's "Hamas sympathizers"....but in the next administration it is not outlandish to believe it could be "Zionist sympathizers".....for example. There's a non-trivial portion of the left that think supporting Israel is "supporting genocide".
The level of uncertainty this would cause in our immigration process would be untenable.
Everyone loves the stick when it's their enemies being beaten over the head. Not so much when it's turned on their allies.
I've been thinking since he was detained that it's so easy for people to not defend this guy - even most elected democrats don't want to be seen as anti-Israel. They don't say something, this guy gets deported, and that sets the stage for whatever this admin wants to do. What's next? Pro-Ukraine protesters get deported?
Didn’t he already revoke Ukrainian refugee visas?
Anyway, I hope the courts extend free speech to legal immigrants.
But this is definitely Skokie, Illinois situation. What an utterly loathsome person is Khalil.
If material support can be shown, I hope they deport him for that.