11 ms·

ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says

141 points by n1b0m 2y ago

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
> who claimed they were acting on a state department order to revoke his green card, according to his attorney I thought green cards can only be revoked in rather limited circumstances. What is he accused of?
- sour-taste 2y ago
  It says it in the title, he's Palestinian. Nevermind that it's likely illegal, we don't live in a world where that matters any more.
  - easytiger 2y ago
    The title does not say that
    - sour-taste 2y ago
      You're right updated
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world. Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
    - RIMR 2y ago
      What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal. You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
      - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        > You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism. Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding. Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
        9283409232 2y ago
        Trump being popular is insane in itself.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations. The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality. Hope is not a strategy.
        2y ago
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      That's also incorrect in a certain way. All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are. If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws. The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power. With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law. The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society No, this is mob rule. > who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power? This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1]. The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record-low-poll-2040978 https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record... [2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        > No, this is mob rule. I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible. Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army. You should answer a few questions: (1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights? (2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society? (3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law? (4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
    - tgma 2y ago
      > It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you. How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise? There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- easytiger 2y ago
  Making statements in support of or in support of the actions of a proscribed terrorist group.
  - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
    And that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen?
    - easytiger 2y ago
      I would hope so
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen? If he’s organising support for a terrorist organisation or October 17th [EDIT: 7th], yes. If he’s just voicing support for Palestinian rights, it shouldn’t be.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - jsheard 2y ago
    What statements did they make in support of Hamas or their actions? Forgive me for not taking that claim at face value given that literally any pro-Palestinian speech, no matter how measured, tends to get conflated with support for terrorism and/or anti-semitism. Even something as benign as wearing a keffiyeh in solidarity, which the ADLs CEO likened to wearing a swastika.
    - azernik 2y ago
      The closest to it is that the organization he represented supported resistance "by any means, including armed resistance" immediately after 7.10.23. But AFAIU they were very careful not to mention Hamas, positively or negatively.
  - 2y ago
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Supporting a terrorist organization is legal grounds. Section 237 of the INA.
  - heartbreak 2y ago
    Which judge ruled on his case? I can’t seem to find it.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      It's not based on legal precedent, it's right in the code. It was part of the "Immigration and Nationality Act", which most people refer to as "INA".
      - azernik 2y ago
        You still need a judge to rule that he in fact broke the law. (Specifically an immigration judge.)
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Misread "his" for "this". He's only just been detained, I don't imagine a hearing has happened that fast.
        heartbreak 2y ago
        Then he still has green card status.
    - latentcall 2y ago
      They didn’t. No ruling exists. This dude was just black bagged.
- tgma 2y ago
  Since the administration specifically brought up "Department of State" as one of the entities that helped with the effort, my guess is the action is founded on this specific statue, not the "terrorist support" piece in particular, despite the latter being the widespread speculation: 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) "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" This provision basically lets Secretary of State to deport any alien he deems in the future might post a threat to foreign policy. It does not appear to be a difficult standard to justify either and gives Secretary of State broad leeways in deportation of all aliens, including LPRs. That said, I am not sure it even technically constitutes "revocation" of green card. They seem to be able to simply deport you with a green card without needing the procedural burden of revocation. All the other provisions outlined for cancelation seem to involve DHS (incl. USCIS) and Attorney General to cancels one's green card, and would not really be in purview of Dept. of State.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    If that is that statute Trump is deporting him over, that’s both hilarious and extremely sad at the same time. I doubt there is any single person in US history that has been more damaging to foreign relations.
    - tgma 2y ago
      > ...damaging to foreign relations The statue talks about Foreign Policy, not foreign relations. Foreign Policy is set by the executive branch, so almost by definition he cannot be against his own foreign policy. It could be a President's foreign policy to sever ties with some allies, for example, if it is in the benefit of the American people as he sees it.
bananapub 2y ago
headline is misleading, as far as anyone can tell he's been kidnapped, not arrested. allegedly, they: - follow him in to his home - refuse to identify themselves - tell him his green card has been cancelled - tell his wife they'll kidnap her too if she intervenes - takes him somewhere - won't tell anyone where he is, including his (8 month pregnant) wife and lawyer allegedly they have done this because he's been loudly critical of the policies of a foreign government, which as everyone knows, is not a crime. as everyone also knows, random feds can't just kidnap you even if they think you have committed an actual crime.
- anon291 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - azernik 2y ago
    Only after a hearing before a judge. The State Department does not have the legal authority to revoke Green Cards.
    - rexpop 2y ago
      Feels like nobody ran an integration test, and we're about to find out that 1st amendment violations are an emergent property of a complex system riddled with accountability sinks.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Have they revoked it? I thought he’s just been arrested. That’s something various police forces within State absolutely can do with probably cause.
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
        Does it matter if he was 'arrested'? They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest, he's being denied his right to an attorney and are refusing to tell his representation where he is even at.
easytiger 2y ago
[flagged]
- bigyabai 2y ago
  The Vietnam protestors were right, so were the people who protested the Iraq invasion. And the Watergate protestors had a few good points, then there was also the Civil rights protests that were pretty beneficial in the end. But besides all of those cases, what have the protestors ever done for us?
morkalork 2y ago
>Last week it was reported by Axios that Secretary of State Marco Rubio intends to revoke visas from foreign nationals who are deemed to support Hamas or other terrorist groups, using artificial intelligence (AI) to pick out individuals [on social media] Yikes. Once the government has built that infrastructure and pipeline from monitoring to arrest, you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent?
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  Of course they won’t /s
- throw310822 2y ago
  > you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent? Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? There's no freedom of speech anymore in the US if you go against the interests of Israel.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue. We will eventually know the government is full of bunk. But that takes time. In the meantime, I think all we can do is note who is jumping to conclusions with incomplete information and who is prescient about objective facts (not forecasts).
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      > We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Very relevant in a court of law. Not really so in public opinion. I’m not saying we can conclude he deserves any of this, nor that it’s legal. I’m just saying we can’t conclude what happened was illegal without knowing the charges and evidence.
blindriver 2y ago
[dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- duxup 2y ago
  >openly support terrorist organizations If say he sent money to hamas I might agree, but as far as the dialog / discussions surrounding Palestine and Israel these days it seems like any support for civilians on either side is inevitably presumed to be support for the worst crimes of that group's nation support for terrorism or anti antisemitism or such.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it seems like any support for civilians on either side is inevitably presumed to be support for the worst crimes of that group's nation support for terrorism or anti antisemitism or such Eh, I’d draw a line between someone circulating pro-Hamas or pro-Netanyahu fliers and someone speaking to the plight and the cause. And I’d draw a further line between someone trying to enact policies favourable to them (note: not which they might find favour with, that’s much broader) or sending resources their way.
    - duxup 2y ago
      My point being I have trouble understanding any of what anyone means when it comes to this topic. I’ve seen plenty of folks associate things together that don’t seem to follow. Someone says “pro hamas”… I’m not sure what they think that is.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Yup. It’s intentionally ambiguous because you have two groups of people talking to themselves, including about how the other group perceives and portrays them. The actual interaction is sparse and frankly horrible, so instead we get two pools of thought careening under their own momentum into increasing incoherence.
rahimnathwani 2y ago
[flagged]
9283409232 2y ago
I don't think they believe they can revoke his green card and deport it. If they actually can then they'll do it but what they want are the headlines and the fear.
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
If you hold a green card and support an organization which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the US government, you are taking a giant risk and are quite likely to be deported (legally). Section 237 of INA explicitly calls it out. Most green card holders will tell you they feel like a guest in the country. Getting involved in protests and supporting organizations on the terror list etc seems rather silly...
- archagon 2y ago
  Did Mahmoud Khalil actually speak out in support of Hamas?
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    No idea.
  - latentcall 2y ago
    Pro-Palestinian is the same thing as pro-Hamas according to AIPAC and the administration. So according to them, yes. According to logical peoples, no,
    - invalidname 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - archagon 2y ago
        No, I recall the protests erupting shortly after Israel started annihilating Gaza and chasing the refugee population around the country.
        invalidname 2y ago
        [flagged]
bloomingkales 2y ago
How we can we help him get proper legal help and awareness on a regular basis? Is HN beyond sticky threads? Seems like society in general is, but ... we need sticky threads at this point.
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  We could assess whether there are any big organizations separate to Hn and engaged on this issue already that could do with support, instead of needlessly duplicating their efforts.
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    Well I guess this is the donation for the month: https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rig...
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  ADC is one organization that usually supports such cases. Here is their press release on this: https://adc.org/adc-condemns-ice-targeting-of-columbia-university-student-leader-and-palestinian-advocate-amid-renewed-discriminatory-visa-policies/ https://adc.org/adc-condemns-ice-targeting-of-columbia-unive...
theahura 2y ago
Supposedly they moved him to Louisiana after and in response to habeaus corpus being filed by his lawyers (https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lk2kk7scas2k https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lk2k...) which is, of course, incredibly alarming. 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.
jakeinspace 2y ago
My understanding of the relevant law and legal precedent is that since revoking a green card and deporting someone is not technically a criminal penalty, it may be constitutional for the government to so. Reno vs AADC went to SCOTUS in 1999, and that was roughly the ruling, although it's unclear how much of a precedent that sets, because the lower court's ruling was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. Even if that is considered settled (which, personally, I find a pretty lousy interpretation of the first amendment), it would still make this arrest and detention totally illegal, at least warranting a lawsuit, even if deportation can't be avoided. Hopefully I'm wrong. This whole thing is so destructive to the constitution, to personal liberties, and to higher education.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kennysoona 2y ago
He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment. It's not more complicated than that.
etc-hosts 2y ago
reminds me of the guys who went to (and are still in) jail for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relie...

141 points by n1b0m 2y ago

> who claimed they were acting on a state department order to revoke his green card, according to his attorney I thought green cards can only be revoked in rather limited circumstances. What is he accused of?

sour-taste 2y ago
It says it in the title, he's Palestinian. Nevermind that it's likely illegal, we don't live in a world where that matters any more.
- easytiger 2y ago
  The title does not say that
  - sour-taste 2y ago
    You're right updated
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world. Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
  - RIMR 2y ago
    What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal. You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      > You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism. Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding. Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
      - 9283409232 2y ago
        Trump being popular is insane in itself.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations. The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality. Hope is not a strategy.
        2y ago
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    That's also incorrect in a certain way. All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are. If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws. The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power. With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law. The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society No, this is mob rule. > who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power? This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1]. The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record-low-poll-2040978 https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record... [2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
      - hayst4ck 2y ago
        > No, this is mob rule. I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible. Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army. You should answer a few questions: (1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights? (2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society? (3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law? (4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
  - tgma 2y ago
    > It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you. How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise? There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
easytiger 2y ago
Making statements in support of or in support of the actions of a proscribed terrorist group.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  And that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen?
  - easytiger 2y ago
    I would hope so
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen? If he’s organising support for a terrorist organisation or October 17th [EDIT: 7th], yes. If he’s just voicing support for Palestinian rights, it shouldn’t be.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- jsheard 2y ago
  What statements did they make in support of Hamas or their actions? Forgive me for not taking that claim at face value given that literally any pro-Palestinian speech, no matter how measured, tends to get conflated with support for terrorism and/or anti-semitism. Even something as benign as wearing a keffiyeh in solidarity, which the ADLs CEO likened to wearing a swastika.
  - azernik 2y ago
    The closest to it is that the organization he represented supported resistance "by any means, including armed resistance" immediately after 7.10.23. But AFAIU they were very careful not to mention Hamas, positively or negatively.
- 2y ago
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Supporting a terrorist organization is legal grounds. Section 237 of the INA.
- heartbreak 2y ago
  Which judge ruled on his case? I can’t seem to find it.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    It's not based on legal precedent, it's right in the code. It was part of the "Immigration and Nationality Act", which most people refer to as "INA".
    - azernik 2y ago
      You still need a judge to rule that he in fact broke the law. (Specifically an immigration judge.)
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Misread "his" for "this". He's only just been detained, I don't imagine a hearing has happened that fast.
        heartbreak 2y ago
        Then he still has green card status.
  - latentcall 2y ago
    They didn’t. No ruling exists. This dude was just black bagged.
tgma 2y ago
Since the administration specifically brought up "Department of State" as one of the entities that helped with the effort, my guess is the action is founded on this specific statue, not the "terrorist support" piece in particular, despite the latter being the widespread speculation: 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) "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" This provision basically lets Secretary of State to deport any alien he deems in the future might post a threat to foreign policy. It does not appear to be a difficult standard to justify either and gives Secretary of State broad leeways in deportation of all aliens, including LPRs. That said, I am not sure it even technically constitutes "revocation" of green card. They seem to be able to simply deport you with a green card without needing the procedural burden of revocation. All the other provisions outlined for cancelation seem to involve DHS (incl. USCIS) and Attorney General to cancels one's green card, and would not really be in purview of Dept. of State.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  If that is that statute Trump is deporting him over, that’s both hilarious and extremely sad at the same time. I doubt there is any single person in US history that has been more damaging to foreign relations.
  - tgma 2y ago
    > ...damaging to foreign relations The statue talks about Foreign Policy, not foreign relations. Foreign Policy is set by the executive branch, so almost by definition he cannot be against his own foreign policy. It could be a President's foreign policy to sever ties with some allies, for example, if it is in the benefit of the American people as he sees it.

bananapub 2y ago

headline is misleading, as far as anyone can tell he's been kidnapped, not arrested. allegedly, they: - follow him in to his home - refuse to identify themselves - tell him his green card has been cancelled - tell his wife they'll kidnap her too if she intervenes - takes him somewhere - won't tell anyone where he is, including his (8 month pregnant) wife and lawyer allegedly they have done this because he's been loudly critical of the policies of a foreign government, which as everyone knows, is not a crime. as everyone also knows, random feds can't just kidnap you even if they think you have committed an actual crime.

anon291 2y ago
[flagged]
- azernik 2y ago
  Only after a hearing before a judge. The State Department does not have the legal authority to revoke Green Cards.
  - rexpop 2y ago
    Feels like nobody ran an integration test, and we're about to find out that 1st amendment violations are an emergent property of a complex system riddled with accountability sinks.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Have they revoked it? I thought he’s just been arrested. That’s something various police forces within State absolutely can do with probably cause.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      Does it matter if he was 'arrested'? They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest, he's being denied his right to an attorney and are refusing to tell his representation where he is even at.

easytiger 2y ago

[flagged]

bigyabai 2y ago
The Vietnam protestors were right, so were the people who protested the Iraq invasion. And the Watergate protestors had a few good points, then there was also the Civil rights protests that were pretty beneficial in the end. But besides all of those cases, what have the protestors ever done for us?

morkalork 2y ago

>Last week it was reported by Axios that Secretary of State Marco Rubio intends to revoke visas from foreign nationals who are deemed to support Hamas or other terrorist groups, using artificial intelligence (AI) to pick out individuals [on social media] Yikes. Once the government has built that infrastructure and pipeline from monitoring to arrest, you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent?

Cyph0n 2y ago
Of course they won’t /s
throw310822 2y ago
> you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent? Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? There's no freedom of speech anymore in the US if you go against the interests of Israel.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue. We will eventually know the government is full of bunk. But that takes time. In the meantime, I think all we can do is note who is jumping to conclusions with incomplete information and who is prescient about objective facts (not forecasts).
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    > We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Very relevant in a court of law. Not really so in public opinion. I’m not saying we can conclude he deserves any of this, nor that it’s legal. I’m just saying we can’t conclude what happened was illegal without knowing the charges and evidence.

blindriver 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
duxup 2y ago
>openly support terrorist organizations If say he sent money to hamas I might agree, but as far as the dialog / discussions surrounding Palestine and Israel these days it seems like any support for civilians on either side is inevitably presumed to be support for the worst crimes of that group's nation support for terrorism or anti antisemitism or such.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it seems like any support for civilians on either side is inevitably presumed to be support for the worst crimes of that group's nation support for terrorism or anti antisemitism or such Eh, I’d draw a line between someone circulating pro-Hamas or pro-Netanyahu fliers and someone speaking to the plight and the cause. And I’d draw a further line between someone trying to enact policies favourable to them (note: not which they might find favour with, that’s much broader) or sending resources their way.
  - duxup 2y ago
    My point being I have trouble understanding any of what anyone means when it comes to this topic. I’ve seen plenty of folks associate things together that don’t seem to follow. Someone says “pro hamas”… I’m not sure what they think that is.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Yup. It’s intentionally ambiguous because you have two groups of people talking to themselves, including about how the other group perceives and portrays them. The actual interaction is sparse and frankly horrible, so instead we get two pools of thought careening under their own momentum into increasing incoherence.

rahimnathwani 2y ago

[flagged]

9283409232 2y ago

I don't think they believe they can revoke his green card and deport it. If they actually can then they'll do it but what they want are the headlines and the fear.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

If you hold a green card and support an organization which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the US government, you are taking a giant risk and are quite likely to be deported (legally). Section 237 of INA explicitly calls it out. Most green card holders will tell you they feel like a guest in the country. Getting involved in protests and supporting organizations on the terror list etc seems rather silly...

archagon 2y ago
Did Mahmoud Khalil actually speak out in support of Hamas?
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  No idea.
- latentcall 2y ago
  Pro-Palestinian is the same thing as pro-Hamas according to AIPAC and the administration. So according to them, yes. According to logical peoples, no,
  - invalidname 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - archagon 2y ago
      No, I recall the protests erupting shortly after Israel started annihilating Gaza and chasing the refugee population around the country.
      - invalidname 2y ago
        [flagged]

bloomingkales 2y ago

How we can we help him get proper legal help and awareness on a regular basis? Is HN beyond sticky threads? Seems like society in general is, but ... we need sticky threads at this point.

OgsyedIE 2y ago
We could assess whether there are any big organizations separate to Hn and engaged on this issue already that could do with support, instead of needlessly duplicating their efforts.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Well I guess this is the donation for the month: https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rig...
Cyph0n 2y ago
ADC is one organization that usually supports such cases. Here is their press release on this: https://adc.org/adc-condemns-ice-targeting-of-columbia-university-student-leader-and-palestinian-advocate-amid-renewed-discriminatory-visa-policies/ https://adc.org/adc-condemns-ice-targeting-of-columbia-unive...

theahura 2y ago

Supposedly they moved him to Louisiana after and in response to habeaus corpus being filed by his lawyers (https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lk2kk7scas2k https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lk2k...) which is, of course, incredibly alarming. 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.

jakeinspace 2y ago

My understanding of the relevant law and legal precedent is that since revoking a green card and deporting someone is not technically a criminal penalty, it may be constitutional for the government to so. Reno vs AADC went to SCOTUS in 1999, and that was roughly the ruling, although it's unclear how much of a precedent that sets, because the lower court's ruling was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. Even if that is considered settled (which, personally, I find a pretty lousy interpretation of the first amendment), it would still make this arrest and detention totally illegal, at least warranting a lawsuit, even if deportation can't be avoided. Hopefully I'm wrong. This whole thing is so destructive to the constitution, to personal liberties, and to higher education.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kennysoona 2y ago

He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment. It's not more complicated than that.

etc-hosts 2y ago

reminds me of the guys who went to (and are still in) jail for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relie...