5 ms·

US Green-Card Holder and Columbia Student Arrested by ICE for Protest

128 points by theahura 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gnabgib 2y ago
Discussion (86 points, 1 day ago, 117 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43314700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43314700
IncreasePosts 2y ago
I guess the important question is what activities aligned with Hamas did this fellow engage in? Until that is known it's impossible to say if this is an overreach by Trump and rubio, or if he's a person who should be deported for the supporting terrorist activities.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Given the deafening lack of any reasons presented, I have to assume there is none.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    This is very succinctly put and absolutely correct.
- theahura 2y ago
  We have a judicial system that exists precisely to answer these questions. However, despite repeated attempts to utilize that judicial system, Khalil's lawyers have been stonewalled from their charge by the government. THAT is the most important thing. Everything else is downstream of that -- you cannot have a fair evaluation of any of the things you are talking about without a fair trial, and that's not happening.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  You have a right to know what you’re accused of. This person doesn’t even have charges filed against them.
  - votepaunchy 2y ago
    You don’t need to be accused of a crime to have your green card revoked.
- guelo 2y ago
  Trump's doesn't want the burden of due process to discover the facts impartially because that would ruin the propaganda, he just wants to deport people based on hearsay.
monideas 2y ago
It's a bit pointless to repeatedly have this story on HN given that most of the heterodox comments just get flagged.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 2y ago
  The point isn't to debate whether fascism might be a good thing in some abstract indulgence of moral relativism. Rather the point is for us Americans who have woken up to how our country is being full on attacked to discuss ways we might resist.
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/3lk2k 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
  But the fallacy here is to think that we still have laws and a legal system. The real question being asked here is: what are you gonna do?
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    [flagged]
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.
- yusaythat 2y ago
  [flagged]
- TMWNN 2y ago
  > He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment. The ability of a government to control its borders and control who is within them is about the oldest and most fundamental such state right there is. Khalil is protected by the First Amendment. That does not give him immunity from the US revoking his green card for any reason it sees fit, especially if he is in the two-year conditional period. The green card adds more steps/requirements, but it is in no way unrevokable, the same as any other visa that the US grants as permission to stay in the country.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > any reason it sees fit, Which should not including exercising a fundamental right granted to him, not only when he became a permanent resident, but whenever he is on US soil.
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      The United States has no need or reason to tolerate within its borders non-citizen public supporters of Hamas, which the government officially defines as a terrorist group. Khalil had to affirm when entering the United States, and again when applying for a green card, that he was not a supporter of terror groups. He, apparently, lied.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        There is no US law which prohibits the broad category of support, public or otherwise. There is US law, linked to by the article, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:2339B%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:... concerning material support, defined as: > the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; The claim is that he "led activities aligned to Hamas", which is meaningless. I think food and drinking water must be supplied to Gaza as humanitarian aid, which is also something that Hamas thinks. My public support of this goal, while aligned with Hamas, is not illegal. > that he was not a supporter of terror groups No, it does not require that. See https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terrorism-related-inadmissibility-grounds-trig https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terror... . """The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who: * Engaged in ‘terrorist activity;’” * Are engaged or are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry; * Incited terrorist activity with intent to cause serious bodily harm or death; * Are representatives or current members of a terrorist organization; * Endorsed or espoused terrorist activity; * Received military-type training from or on behalf of a terrorist organization; or * Are spouses or children of anyone who has engaged in terrorist activity within the last five years (with certain exceptions). """ The term "terrorist activity" prohibits "Material Support", but does not "activities aligned" with terrorist groups.

128 points by theahura 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Discussion (86 points, 1 day ago, 117 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43314700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43314700

IncreasePosts 2y ago

I guess the important question is what activities aligned with Hamas did this fellow engage in? Until that is known it's impossible to say if this is an overreach by Trump and rubio, or if he's a person who should be deported for the supporting terrorist activities.

Aeolun 2y ago
Given the deafening lack of any reasons presented, I have to assume there is none.
danpalmer 2y ago
[flagged]
- aaomidi 2y ago
  This is very succinctly put and absolutely correct.
theahura 2y ago
We have a judicial system that exists precisely to answer these questions. However, despite repeated attempts to utilize that judicial system, Khalil's lawyers have been stonewalled from their charge by the government. THAT is the most important thing. Everything else is downstream of that -- you cannot have a fair evaluation of any of the things you are talking about without a fair trial, and that's not happening.
aaomidi 2y ago
You have a right to know what you’re accused of. This person doesn’t even have charges filed against them.
- votepaunchy 2y ago
  You don’t need to be accused of a crime to have your green card revoked.
guelo 2y ago
Trump's doesn't want the burden of due process to discover the facts impartially because that would ruin the propaganda, he just wants to deport people based on hearsay.

monideas 2y ago

It's a bit pointless to repeatedly have this story on HN given that most of the heterodox comments just get flagged.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 2y ago
The point isn't to debate whether fascism might be a good thing in some abstract indulgence of moral relativism. Rather the point is for us Americans who have woken up to how our country is being full on attacked to discuss ways we might resist.

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/3lk2k 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.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
But the fallacy here is to think that we still have laws and a legal system. The real question being asked here is: what are you gonna do?
- aaomidi 2y ago
  [flagged]

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.

yusaythat 2y ago
[flagged]
TMWNN 2y ago
> He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment. The ability of a government to control its borders and control who is within them is about the oldest and most fundamental such state right there is. Khalil is protected by the First Amendment. That does not give him immunity from the US revoking his green card for any reason it sees fit, especially if he is in the two-year conditional period. The green card adds more steps/requirements, but it is in no way unrevokable, the same as any other visa that the US grants as permission to stay in the country.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > any reason it sees fit, Which should not including exercising a fundamental right granted to him, not only when he became a permanent resident, but whenever he is on US soil.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    The United States has no need or reason to tolerate within its borders non-citizen public supporters of Hamas, which the government officially defines as a terrorist group. Khalil had to affirm when entering the United States, and again when applying for a green card, that he was not a supporter of terror groups. He, apparently, lied.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      There is no US law which prohibits the broad category of support, public or otherwise. There is US law, linked to by the article, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:2339B%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:... concerning material support, defined as: > the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; The claim is that he "led activities aligned to Hamas", which is meaningless. I think food and drinking water must be supplied to Gaza as humanitarian aid, which is also something that Hamas thinks. My public support of this goal, while aligned with Hamas, is not illegal. > that he was not a supporter of terror groups No, it does not require that. See https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terrorism-related-inadmissibility-grounds-trig https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/terror... . """The grounds for inadmissibility include, but are not limited to, individuals who: * Engaged in ‘terrorist activity;’” * Are engaged or are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry; * Incited terrorist activity with intent to cause serious bodily harm or death; * Are representatives or current members of a terrorist organization; * Endorsed or espoused terrorist activity; * Received military-type training from or on behalf of a terrorist organization; or * Are spouses or children of anyone who has engaged in terrorist activity within the last five years (with certain exceptions). """ The term "terrorist activity" prohibits "Material Support", but does not "activities aligned" with terrorist groups.