4 ms·
> Rather, Rubio wrote Khalil could be expelled for his beliefs. He said that while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the countr
by nolok 2y ago
> Rather, Rubio wrote Khalil could be expelled for his beliefs. He said that while Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful,” letting him remain in the country would undermine “U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.”
The way I read that, it's even more dangerous than it looked at first.
I'm from France and so we have the whole hate speech limitation to freedom of speech, that I agree with, it works but has to be well defined and limited to specifical type of things.
What the US gov is arguing here if I'm not mistaken, is that if the US gov wants to go in direction X, anyone arguing for another direction can now be deported even if everything they do and say is technically legal to. You simply have to apply that thinking to anything that isn't as polarized as israel/palestine to see how dangerous of a point of view it is. If the judge don't stop that, I don't see how that can lead to anything other than political persecution of the opposition.
- foogazi 2y ago> If the judge don't stop that, I don't see how that can lead to anything other than political persecution of the opposition. Or worse, a chilling effect
- david38 2y agoThis applies to non-citizens only. In principle, the second generation should be fine
- locopati 2y agoi suspect you're joking here, but there are people who think this only applies to non-citizens and that they don't deserve due process. so this is for those people... they can just declare citizens as non-citizens with the same lack of due process and now we're all in the same boat.
- drivingmenuts 2y agoFor how long will it apply only to non-citizens? Trump is trying to figure out a way to deport citizens. Admittedly, the citizens are actual criminals, but how long will it be possible not to be a criminal for one thing or another? It appears that disagreeing with the administration is enough for them to at least consider if they can do it.
- monkeyfun 2y agoSo far they've already detained a lawyer who is an american citizen when he was reentering the country, and tried to grill him for inside information on cases he's actively working and people he knows. They eventually let him go, but they targeted him specifically and knew his name and significance, and he was defending one of the student protesters. They even called a "tactical terrorism response team". Oh, and check out how you can find them being used in already opaque and sinister ways back in 2021 under Biden, and earlier. You do the math.
- nolok 2y agoWhen talking about fundamental rights (like say, the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or ...), I don't understand the thinking that only some people should have them based on some legal criteria. I'm talking out of my ass here but it feels like the kind of legacy that is carried by having stuff like slavery and the like where humans were not equals. I guess this is why in France we call those fundamental rights human rights and not citizens rights. My point being: I don't see how the difference you give provides anything other that than the ability to abuse some groups, I don't see any advantage from it.
- foogazi 2y agocan we trust this administration on principles ? Why risk prosecutorial discretion or judicial review when they pick the judges and are eager to set precedent, test theories What’s a visa, green card or naturalization certificate worth when they can make you disappear without consequence?
- eesmith 2y agoThe way I read it, if a foreigner living in the US says it would be wrong for the US to invade Canada or take over Greenland, or bomb Houthis, etc. than the could be deported because that would "compromise a compelling U.S.foreign policy interest." It doesn't even have the "clear and present danger" requirement of Schenck v. United States - the infamous "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" Supreme Court case largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited government action to only speech likely "likely to incite or produce [imminent lawless] action."
- aaomidi 2y agoAlso, beyond that. These policies do not make it safer for Jewish people, rather it makes it less safe.