Unless you’re a consequentialist and then it is possible.
Ok— I wasn’t suggesting you stop.
It was a good podcast, but I don’t see them ending up where you did, re: authoritarianism.
Given all that I posted, this is what you focus on. Yawnz. Seems like a trigger. Yawnnnn
Have you watched the podcast? If not— 
It just seems hypocritical for this gag order to single out one specific ethnic group and one particular country for special protection from hate crimes/speech. What is so special about Israel and Jews? It seems like selective outrage. Just anecdotally, from my experience and observations, there is far more anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. at large. In the red state where I live most of the Christian Bible Belters who dominate the population are in fact philo-Semites who place Israel second to America itself, if that - they really believe all that Chosen People mythos, because that’s what’s in the Bible.
1 Like
Are they? Why do you think they are?
It has been suggested in the podcast and by myself that making this an anti Jewish issue is blowback against the CRT/DEI anti white anti western anti patriarchy narrative of the past decade.
The issue itself , the narrative ideology, is the issue, not the Jews or Israel— of you follow that line of thinking. They’re just the tools.
And can’t you just move? 
Haven’t read it yet. Busy. Coffee break but it popped up.
I guess the courts will tell us if revoking a visa and GC is allowed.
What did the UK do with their ISIS baby mama? 
Looks tenuous on the surface. Unless some social media, emails or other connections prove Hamas support/affiliation.
They are referencing Hamas because that could qualify him for deportation, whereas it’s questionable violating the new executive order combating anti-semitism would have the same outcome.
Makes me wonder if this case could bring that EO to constitutional scrutiny or even a review of the immigration and nationality act.
IDK about the EO, haven’t seen it, but there is this:
An American Green Card (officially known as a Permanent Resident Card) can be revoked under various circumstances if the holder violates certain conditions of permanent residency. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State (DOS) do not typically revoke Green Cards arbitrarily but do so based on specific legal grounds. Some of the circumstances include:
1. Abandonment of Permanent Residency
- Spending extended periods (often over six months or a year) outside the U.S. without maintaining ties or demonstrating intent to remain a permanent resident.
- Failing to file U.S. tax returns as a resident.
- Declaring yourself a “non-resident” on official documents, such as tax forms.
2. Criminal Convictions
- Conviction of certain crimes, especially aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude (e.g., fraud, theft, assault, or drug offenses).
- Engaging in terrorist activities, espionage, or sabotage.
3. Fraud or Misrepresentation
- Providing false information or documents during the Green Card application process or interviews.
- Failing to disclose critical information that would have made you ineligible for permanent residency.
4. Violating Immigration Laws
- Assisting someone else in entering the U.S. illegally or committing immigration fraud.
- Overstaying or misusing a visa in ways that contradict your permanent resident status.
5. Engaging in National Security Threats
- Participating in activities that pose a threat to U.S. national security or public safety, such as espionage or terrorism.
6. Failure to Update Address
- Permanent residents are required to report changes of address to USCIS within 10 days of moving. Failure to do so may lead to legal consequences.
7. Becoming a Public Charge (in Rare Cases)
- If you became a public charge due to fraud or intentional avoidance of financial responsibility, it could lead to deportation proceedings.
8. Overturning of Residency Approval
- If the Green Card was issued in error or if an immigration officer discovers a material issue that invalidates the approval, the card may be revoked.
9. Loss of Permanent Resident Status via Naturalization in Another Country
- If a Green Card holder naturalizes in another country and explicitly renounces their U.S. permanent residency.
10. Involvement in Polygamy or Bigamy
- Committing fraud related to marital status or engaging in polygamy can be grounds for revocation.
Revocation Process
Revocation of a Green Card is not automatic. The government must initiate removal proceedings (deportation), during which the Green Card holder has the right to defend their status before an immigration judge.
There is this:
ICE Arrest of Columbia Student Marks New Era of Campus Politics
Khalil played a prominent role organizing protests last year against the war in Gaza, often addressing crowds on Columbia’s lawn and giving interviews to national media. He was also inside the Barnard library during an occupation last week to protest the expulsion of two students for earlier demonstrations, according to photographs posted on social media.
According to a White House official, the Department of Homeland Security started looking for individuals at Columbia University based on Trump’s January antisemitism executive order, which calls on the government to use “all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”
What IS violence?
Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on March 8, 2025. Despite his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on campus, no criminal charges have been filed against him. Instead, the arrest stems from the revocation of his permanent resident status (green card) by the State Department, citing national security concerns.
Khalil’s detention is part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to address what it perceives as antisemitic activities on U.S. campuses. This includes revoking visas and green cards of individuals considered supportive of Hamas or other organizations deemed a threat to national security.
Yeah, that “Threat to National Security” should be the muddy water in court.
Seems like he didn’t do anything except being active in protests the government doesn’t like. Protesting anything else is apparently not an issue.
2 Likes
Israel is America’s sacred cow and anything critical of it or its actions is blasphemy. That’s his real crime.
2 Likes
I will counter with the occupation of the library. 
Crime of the century
So you admit it was crime. 
Again, before we get all caught up in this nobody whose life is about to be ruined, I still think this is how the feds force the unis to stop the stupid.
Not that it’s not morally reprehensible, Mind you. But morality and law don’t always mix.
It wasn’t a crime by definition as it wasn’t charged. I’m not sure why you think it’s worthy of mention. Typical thing that might happen during a protest, yawn.
They’ve made him a somebody, you can bet on that.
1 Like
The green card issue adds to the confusion. It may be that State knows he’ll get off and they don’t mind, as the article I put up suggested, be making an example of him. The question is an example for whom?
Harvard ‘no longer affiliated’ with librarian who tore down hostage fliers at anti-Israel rally
Harvard maybe?
From my POV, even that is better than the alternative which suggests State is, as the say on Reddit, regarded. Just run of the mill abuse of power.
Or, you know, not that.
Sure, civil disobedience is a criminal act but they’re calling him a Hamas supporter, whatever that means. If innocent, he should sue whoever he can for defamation. Throw another lawsuit on the fire, Trump&Co can’t win em all.
For this to fly I suspect he would have to be a member of Hamas.
Or perhaps donating directly to them.
He was working at UNRWA, which is likely part of the argument against him.
1 Like
Some of Trumps biggest donors are Israeli Americans.
It’s interesting on one side people call Trump a Nazi, but those neo nazis don’t like Trump because of being rather pro-Israeli.
Also interesting now both sides need to confront what they mean by free speech and hate speech.
“Free speech is the freedom to say anything that I agree with, if I don’t agree then it is hate speech…”
Still, the question remains whether the statute itself and the executive order enforcing it are constitutional. Strossen explains that “non-citizens with any immigration status at all, including unauthorized immigrants, have the same First Amendment rights that U.S. citizens have…insofar as they have the same protection against criminal penalties, criminal investigations, or civil law enforcement.” However, it’s unclear “whether non-citizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens with respect to the deportation process.”
And that should be the end of it, but as the article mentions:
However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that legal aliens could be deported for membership in the Communist Party without violating the First Amendment
Great precedent. Thoughtcrime. Literally belong to a party → get kicked out. Anti-democratic af.
Not to mention, it’s a stupid us v. them all over. Native US students are free to express whatever they feel because they’re muricans, and while the trump admin can go and throw fits and deny funding for what is fundamentally an expression of free speech, at the end of the day there is no real punitive action they themselves can take against citizen students.
But foreign students who get involved in politics? Yeah, fuck them. It’s a stupid scapegoat for a stupid cause, regardless of whether the cause is the reaction to CRT whatever narrative or just because the Trump admin is just stupidly protective of Israel.
And then they decide to keep the language vague such that any sympathy towards Gaza can be transformed into an excuse to go after some student who saw a fucked-up thing happening and decided that s/he should speak out against it. But only for those students who are internationals, because it’s only problematic then?
It’s nothing more and nothing less than demagogic bullshit. Nix to do with a reaction against CRT. If that was the goal, then they’d be passing hate speech legislation and then would be able to actually prosecute natives for this too. It does nothing but make foreign students fear for their residency if they speak out against any political issue, even though - another brilliant business move from Mr. Art of the deal - US universities increasingly need foreign students.
Divide just because you can. Typical Trump bull. Efforts to rationalize this as one of trump’s 5d chess moves once again make no sense. Surprise.
What happens if they decide it’s also not so good for other immigrants, who protest or deride other things, to be gone? “Oh, it’s clearly his response to CRT. Theyre brown folks and hate the west, that’s why they criticize dear president Trump”?
Awful precedent, morally reprehensible, anti democratic. Any other buzzwords (that just happen to be accurate) that I can add to describe this😅
Had a thought on the west haters, what about all those folks who go on and on about how western media is so biased and that Twitter and RTT are just as reputable sources? They constantly deride the west. Hell, they say the Russian invasion is the west’s fault! That sounds like west-hating to me. West CNA do no right, Putin was clearly forced into moving a whole army because Nancy Pelosi said something and NATO something something.
Perhaps an intervention against them?
“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”
And this for pushback:
Free Mahmoud Khalil | Simple Justice
The putative charge against Khalil is strikingly vague.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Khalil’s arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” The agency alleged that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” but did not provide any details.
What does “led activities aligned to Hamas” mean? It might mean something that would violate the law, or it might mean his pro-Palestinian activities were related to Hamas by logical extension. Or it might mean nothing. Who knows?
It remains unclear whether Khalil engaged in either criminal activities or activities that violated 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), assuming the constitutionality of the law. Some are arguing that his seizure is purely a free speech violation, and as of now, that’s very much the case although it is also possible that there is other conduct that is not protected and violates the law. But if so, then charge Khalil with that conduct. If it’s not purely about free speech, it’s up to the government to make that case, not just snatch him and throw him into immigration custody.
As of now, based upon the Truth Social twit by Trump, however, it appears that the government’s seizure is based on nothing more than Mahmoud Khalil’s protected First Amendment activities, and that is both chilling and unconstitutional, no matter how stupid and despicable his speech may be. Free Mahmoud Khalil.
1 Like