4 ms·

I haven't verified the claims in the article, but some of them seem worth highlighting: 1) No one is arguing that Khalil is or was in the US illegally or witho

by nkurz 2y ago

I haven't verified the claims in the article, but some of them seem worth highlighting: 1) No one is arguing that Khalil is or was in the US illegally or without documentation. 2) He is in the US as a permanent resident with a green card and has a pregnant American wife. 3) Neither his wife nor lawyer have been told why he was arrested or where he is currently being held. 4) When his wife tried to visit him in New Jersey after his arrest, she was told he had been moved, possibly to Louisiana. 5) Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

alabastervlog 2y ago
As with a lot of the rest of what’s going on: there was a right way to (try to) do this, and the truly alarming part isn’t that they tried (that could amount to a policy disagreement, and that’s why we have systems for resolving that stuff) but that they’re going about it blatantly illegally, like, not even credibly attempting to follow the law. They’re doing that because they need to move fast for this whole project to work. They haven’t captured so much of the government that they won’t get bogged down if they do it the right way. They need momentum and progress rolling into April 20th (due date for the “should I invoke the insurrection act?” reports Trump ordered to be created—takes time to get the wrong people out of the way so orders to send the military into “sanctuary cities” to enforce immigration law won’t be resisted, so they couldn’t do it immediately; and they may just use the threat of it, backed by the reports, to get cities to do the Feds’ jobs for them on the cities’ dime, I guess that’s the “if we’re lucky” outcome)
- catigula 2y ago
  This is one of those things that has a lot of bipartisan support. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, which they've adopted, circumscribes speech that is critical of Israel, even if true, as antisemitism. That type of hate speech legislation isn't usually applied to states but is fairly bilaterally supported in American politicians fever dreams. Unfortunately, none of this is acceptable so long as the first constitutional amendment stands.
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > there's no reason to suspect the possible illiberal mass arrests of political opponents in the future No reason, from the man who was already threatening targeted illegal arrest of political opponents? No reason, from the man who keeps making "jokes" about being president for life? No reason, from the man who sent lawyers to the supreme Court to argue that he could order the military to assassinate his rivals and it wouldn't be a crime? No reason, from the man who said he needed generals more like Hitler's? No reason, from the man who promised the largest deportations in American history? No reason, from a man who argued his election loss justified "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"? ... What needs to exist for you to be suspicious?
    - OgsyedIE 2y ago
      /s was apparently necessary, after all.
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law The year is 2025, and Trump has been re-elected. Unfortunately, we are far past the critical threshold of apologists who spout such things non-sarcastically. (Which I'd caution isn't really the same as "sincerely.")
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        Update: Sorry for the [dead]. Wasn't me.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
- ryandrake 2y ago
  It doesn't really look like this administration is super concerned with following the law or doing things "the right way" or whether something is blatantly illegal. Who is going to stop them?
- graeme 2y ago
  Could you expand on where the April 20th date comes from?
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    An executive order issued January 20th. > (b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. April 20th is 90 days out from that (though it could come sooner, and it may already have—the report won’t necessarily be public, as many such reports aren’t and shouldn’t be). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/decl... [edit] “this proclamation” here means the EO itself, or rather, the parts of it that declare a state of emergency “at the southern border”. Emergency powers are also how he’s levying tariffs without Congress.

by nkurz 2y ago

alabastervlog 2y ago

As with a lot of the rest of what’s going on: there was a right way to (try to) do this, and the truly alarming part isn’t that they tried (that could amount to a policy disagreement, and that’s why we have systems for resolving that stuff) but that they’re going about it blatantly illegally, like, not even credibly attempting to follow the law. They’re doing that because they need to move fast for this whole project to work. They haven’t captured so much of the government that they won’t get bogged down if they do it the right way. They need momentum and progress rolling into April 20th (due date for the “should I invoke the insurrection act?” reports Trump ordered to be created—takes time to get the wrong people out of the way so orders to send the military into “sanctuary cities” to enforce immigration law won’t be resisted, so they couldn’t do it immediately; and they may just use the threat of it, backed by the reports, to get cities to do the Feds’ jobs for them on the cities’ dime, I guess that’s the “if we’re lucky” outcome)

catigula 2y ago
This is one of those things that has a lot of bipartisan support. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, which they've adopted, circumscribes speech that is critical of Israel, even if true, as antisemitism. That type of hate speech legislation isn't usually applied to states but is fairly bilaterally supported in American politicians fever dreams. Unfortunately, none of this is acceptable so long as the first constitutional amendment stands.
OgsyedIE 2y ago
[flagged]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > there's no reason to suspect the possible illiberal mass arrests of political opponents in the future No reason, from the man who was already threatening targeted illegal arrest of political opponents? No reason, from the man who keeps making "jokes" about being president for life? No reason, from the man who sent lawyers to the supreme Court to argue that he could order the military to assassinate his rivals and it wouldn't be a crime? No reason, from the man who said he needed generals more like Hitler's? No reason, from the man who promised the largest deportations in American history? No reason, from a man who argued his election loss justified "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"? ... What needs to exist for you to be suspicious?
  - OgsyedIE 2y ago
    /s was apparently necessary, after all.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law The year is 2025, and Trump has been re-elected. Unfortunately, we are far past the critical threshold of apologists who spout such things non-sarcastically. (Which I'd caution isn't really the same as "sincerely.")
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      Update: Sorry for the [dead]. Wasn't me.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
ryandrake 2y ago
It doesn't really look like this administration is super concerned with following the law or doing things "the right way" or whether something is blatantly illegal. Who is going to stop them?
graeme 2y ago
Could you expand on where the April 20th date comes from?
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  An executive order issued January 20th. > (b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. April 20th is 90 days out from that (though it could come sooner, and it may already have—the report won’t necessarily be public, as many such reports aren’t and shouldn’t be). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/decl... [edit] “this proclamation” here means the EO itself, or rather, the parts of it that declare a state of emergency “at the southern border”. Emergency powers are also how he’s levying tariffs without Congress.