4 ms·

This is relevant if they can show that he was deemed to be supporting a terrorist organization, which of course would require him to show up in court and would

This is relevant if they can show that he was deemed to be supporting a terrorist organization, which of course would require him to show up in court and would require the government to defend their decision. They have done neither, and have instead moved him over 1000 miles from his lawyers without telling them

spwa4 2y ago
[flagged]
- theahura 2y ago
  Two things: - massive citation needed on the 'this person organized protests where people got hurt'. Here is a pro-israel group that explicitly tracks antisemitic behavior, and all they have on the guy is that they don't like his speech: https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil - greencard holders have very strong legal protections, including (of course) first amendment protections (see: https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-c... -- "Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions"). Those first amendment protections would mean nothing if USGov could just deport anyone whose speech they do not like without trial. On the latter, though, it is murky -- Volokh has more details, including a lot of citation of legal precedent that goes both ways: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-... The problem, of course, is the 'detained/deported without trial' bit. You can claim whatever you want about what is or isn't true, but we can't ever adjudicate the question if it doesn't go to a court, which this admin seems to be trying to avoid. Specifically, if it turns out that he did NOT ever indicate support for any terrorist organizations (as determined by the courts), he would be free and clear even under your (imo ridiculous) standards, and this whole thing is a straightforward case of an authoritarian government compelling speech. Something that I'd hope the HN crowd is particularly sensitive to.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    They aren't claiming he committed a crime. There will be no trial in a criminal court. The immigration court is a part of the administrative branch (it's part of homeland security). Being protected by the laws doesn't much help here - the law says he is a deportable alien if he has supported a terrorist group. There is various case law on what is and is not protected under the first amendment, but there isn't just a free pass to say whatever you want. The case is quite straightforward indeed - if he did support a terrorist group (and I have no insight on what he actually did), he will be almost certainly be deported.

spwa4 2y ago

[flagged]

theahura 2y ago
Two things: - massive citation needed on the 'this person organized protests where people got hurt'. Here is a pro-israel group that explicitly tracks antisemitic behavior, and all they have on the guy is that they don't like his speech: https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil - greencard holders have very strong legal protections, including (of course) first amendment protections (see: https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-c... -- "Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions"). Those first amendment protections would mean nothing if USGov could just deport anyone whose speech they do not like without trial. On the latter, though, it is murky -- Volokh has more details, including a lot of citation of legal precedent that goes both ways: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-... The problem, of course, is the 'detained/deported without trial' bit. You can claim whatever you want about what is or isn't true, but we can't ever adjudicate the question if it doesn't go to a court, which this admin seems to be trying to avoid. Specifically, if it turns out that he did NOT ever indicate support for any terrorist organizations (as determined by the courts), he would be free and clear even under your (imo ridiculous) standards, and this whole thing is a straightforward case of an authoritarian government compelling speech. Something that I'd hope the HN crowd is particularly sensitive to.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  They aren't claiming he committed a crime. There will be no trial in a criminal court. The immigration court is a part of the administrative branch (it's part of homeland security). Being protected by the laws doesn't much help here - the law says he is a deportable alien if he has supported a terrorist group. There is various case law on what is and is not protected under the first amendment, but there isn't just a free pass to say whatever you want. The case is quite straightforward indeed - if he did support a terrorist group (and I have no insight on what he actually did), he will be almost certainly be deported.