First They Came For…
Plus: Democrats' filibuster hypocrisy, Trump bombs Yemen, March Madness, and more...

…Mahmoud Khalil, but the Trump administration's simultaneous crackdown on due process and free speech for legal immigrants clearly won't stop there. Khalil, a green card holder and former Columbia University grad student who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) more than a week ago, remains incarcerated in Louisiana—despite not having been charged with any crimes.
You are reading Reason Roundup, our daily, morning newsletter.
Get your daily news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.
"The Trump administration possesses neither wisdom nor courage, and it is now in the process of using claims of antisemitism on campus as a justification for grave violations of due process and free speech," writes David French in The New York Times. French, a former First Amendment litigator, argues that this won't end with Khalil, and that "just as we rightly look back in shame at the excesses of McCarthyism, we will look back in shame at the excesses of this moment—if we permit anger at campus protests to overwhelm our commitment to due process and free speech."
The administration maintains that it has the power to revoke Khalil's green card and deport him because he helped lead pro-Palestinian protests. Indeed, it's becoming clear that Khalil was targeted because of his speech, rather than any other conduct that might be reasonably construed as criminal behavior. "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," an administration official told The Free Press last week. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has outlined a similarly broad view of the government's powers: "No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card," he said last week.
True, but green card holders do have rights—and the government does not have the power to detain anyone without due process. That should not be controversial. You might find Khalil's beliefs distasteful, but the question here is not whether he deserves an award. It's whether he gets to enjoy the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Such rights matter because they are not subject to qualification.
In the meantime, read Reason's Robby Soave, who says the "detention of a student activist for engaging in what would clearly be considered First Amendment–protected activity under other circumstances is very alarming."
Meanwhile, the federal government is subjecting other immigrants and permanent residents to inhumane and possibly illegal treatment. Fabian Schmidt, an engineer who has held a green card since 2008, was reportedly detained and brutally interrogated by ICE at Boston's Logan International Airport. A local NPR station, which spoke with Schmidt's relatives, reports that the German national was stripped naked, subjected to a cold shower, and not allowed to eat, drink, or sleep. He ended up in the hospital after the ordeal. (Schmidt has a marijuana conviction on his record, but—needless to say—that should in no way justify such treatment.)
Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant doctor at Brown University's medical school, was deported over the weekend "even though she had a valid visa and a court order temporarily blocking her expulsion," The New York Times reported on Sunday.
And President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a law passed in 1798 as part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts—to authorize the detention and deportation of anyone suspected of being a part of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan drug gang. Almost immediately, a federal judge blocked enforcement of that executive order. For good reason, since the law requires a declaration of war. (Read more from Ilya Somin on the legal issues with using the Alien Enemies Act against immigrants.)
The Trump administration seems to have defied that judicial order by deporting 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador before the move could be blocked—and then refusing to turn the planes around (and possibly having more take off) after it had been. White House officials told The New York Times they couldn't discuss the matter in detail because of "national security," which frankly sounds like bullshit.
Lindsay Toczylowski, an immigration attorney representing one of the Venezuelan asylum seekers deported over the weekend, highlighted how the Trump administration is short-circuiting immigrants' due process in a thread on Bluesky.
The Alien Enemies Act would allow the Trump administration to remove people from the US based on an accusation alone. The accusation could be, as it is for our client, completely baseless. But they would remove them anyway, despite the dangers, despite the lack of due process.
— Lindsay Toczylowski (@l-toczylowski.bsky.social) 2025-03-16T03:33:38.093Z
Due process matters. Yes, even for people who protest in favor of Hamas. Yes, even for people suspected of having ties to a Venezuelan drug gang. Yes, for everyone.
This was never going to end with Khalil. Indeed, Trump is now explicitly promising as much.
It is always exactly what it appears to be with Trump. https://t.co/f1ZGqjIfX5 pic.twitter.com/XqB6QkO1lJ
— The Alex Nowrasteh (@AlexNowrasteh) March 16, 2025
Filibuster hypocrisy. Kyrsten Sinema, the Democrat turned independent who used to represent Arizona in the Senate, spent the weekend handing out some well-deserved told-you-sos after prominent Democrats demanded that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) use the filibuster to stop a Republican-backed spending bill from clearing the Senate last week.
Sinema, you may recall, saved the filibuster in 2021 and 2022 when then-President Joe Biden and many other Democrats wanted to cast it aside in order to pass legislation with a simple majority. At the time, she argued that Democrats were being short-sighted and should preserve the filibuster to defend against a future Republican majority—exactly the thing that Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) now want to see happen.
Change of heart on the filibuster, I see! https://t.co/q13rND50zC pic.twitter.com/dvkfVrSwJJ
— Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) March 15, 2025
Just surprised to see support for the "Jim Crow filibuster" here https://t.co/zohOh0E5st pic.twitter.com/AWQKGHN9CG
— Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) March 15, 2025
Speaking as as a fan of the filibuster and of politicians getting mocked for rank hypocrisy, this is all pretty great.
Anti-war president does some war. President Trump authorized a series of strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on Saturday. In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised the use of "overwhelming lethal force" against the group. More than 30 were killed in the attack, according to the Associated Press.
On Sunday, a drone and missile attack targeted an American ship in the Red Sea. No casualties were reported.
As Matt Yglesias notes, there's a fair bit of irony in Trump launching an attack on Yemen, ostensibly to protect international shipping channels, while he's simultaneously engaged in a multi-front economic war against international trade.
Scenes from March Madness: The greatest sporting event of the year is once again upon us, and we want you, dear readers, to be a part of the action. Join our bracket contest here and also get signed up for Free Agent, a new sports and politics newsletter from Reason's Jason Russell. You could win $750, plus bragging rights in the comments section for the next 12 months.
George Mason University, with its prominent connections to the libertarian movement, was this close to getting into the tournament on Sunday. Better luck next year, Patriots.
George Mason was OH SO CLOSE to sending the A-10 Championship into OT, but VCU hangs on to win the title in a wild finish!
Kevin Harlan on the call for CBS. ????????????️ #MarchMadness pic.twitter.com/9l4HYGJFts
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) March 16, 2025
Need a Reason-centric rooting interest for the next few weeks? Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward's alma mater could be a bracket-buster, and Senior Editor Stephanie Slade's school is a favorite to go all the way. What are you waiting for?
QUICK HITS
- Scientists and public health officials "might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public" about the origins of COVID-19, writes the Princeton sociologist Zeynep Tufekci. She might be onto something there.
- President Donald Trump claims that the last-minute pardons issued by outgoing President Joe Biden are "void, vacant, and of no future force of effect." That could be the first step towards trying to prosecute some of the people who got those pardons—or it might be Trump just being crazy, hard to tell.
- Good read from The Wall Street Journal on how laying off federal workers without also reducing/offloading/privatizing government functions sometimes just means it's harder for people to access those services.
- A silver lining in an otherwise awful trade war: Canada might scrap some of its bad booze laws.
- Tariffs are a hell of a drug:
A record-high share of consumers think business conditions are worseninghttps://t.co/cePP6IJk92 pic.twitter.com/iSKzKf4l0r
— Mike Zaccardi, CFA, CMT ???? (@MikeZaccardi) March 16, 2025
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First They Came For…
...the antisemite.
Some people are just broken.
Daily Kos ran this headline yesterday "Trump lets his Jew-hating flag fly again".
Their reasoning? Trump: "Schumer is a Palestinian as far as I'm concerned. He's become a Palestinian. He used to be Jewish. He's not Jewish anymore. He's a Palestinian."
Kos doubled down in the article, speaking of Musk: " celebrate Trump’s election win with a Nazi salute."
I would say who do they think that they're tricking? But I have an elderly boomer aunt who watches CNN religiously and falls for all of it. She just can't wrap her head around the idea that the media would outright lie to her.
The Elon nazi salute is just amazing. We have video. Even bill burr believes it.
It is astounding how dumb leftists are. Or just purely dishonest.
I’d say they’re dishonest. They’ve been told the truth, shown the facts, yet they persist.
They live in a completely different world.
They remind me of a line about the dwarfs in the Narnia book 'The Last Battle', that I read when I was a kid.
They were basically tossed into heaven but are so proud of their skepticism that they refuse to see the actual world around them and imagine that they are still trapped in a dirty old stable they were originally meant to be imprisoned in.
“Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and are so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out”
The pundit class are definitely dishonest but I think Bill Burr comes by that particular stupidity honestly.
Really, I think its the influence [domination] by his wife.
Agreed. She was passed when Trump got cheered at the UFC.
Patrice would be laughing at him.
yup
Even bill burr believes it.
You say that like Burr is otherwise some sort of intellectual force who just happens to also be a comedian, when in fact he's just another simple-minded entertainer who happens to be good at delivering somewhat-edgy comedic material.
...and I did not speak out— Because I was not an antisemite.
Then they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a pedophile.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/16/predators-are-hiding-behind-pride/
This week, proud trans activist Ireland was convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy he met on Grindr, a gay dating app. He was also found guilty of three counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, one count of sexual assault of a child under 13, and six counts of making indecent images of children. Ireland’s partner, David Sutton, was convicted of making indecent images of children and possessing extreme pornography. Messages exchanged between the pair, revealed during the trial, were deeply disturbing, detailing plans for child abduction and abuse.
Sutton had previously volunteered with Pride in Surrey, and Ireland was an influential figure within the LGBT community.
It has become increasingly clear that, just as PIE supporters sought cover behind legitimate gay groups, there are some abusers today who still camouflage their actions with the Progress Pride flag. And yet too many LGBT groups are blind to this possibility. Meanwhile, they smear those asking questions about gender ideology and safeguarding as bigots.
Obviously, not every man who identifies as transgender is a risk. Nor are these LGBT groups fronts for child abuse. But it seems fair to ask who really benefits from the campaigns of trans activism, and why the movement attracts so many wrong ’uns. It is beyond time we exposed the abusers hiding behind the Pride movement.
Poor Lying Jeffy.
If it was England he would get no jail time.
Sorry but not buying that these groups are blind to the risk they openly protect and encourage while attacking anyone bringing up the subject. They are fronts for child abuse at this point every action listed in the charges is one they actively promote.
We're they and could they be something different or as well, sure but that's irrelevant.
" Ireland was convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy he met on Grindr, a gay dating app." What was a 12-year-old doing on a dating app?
Sbp
"first they came for the pedofiles, so I had to run.
Then they came for the antisemites so I had to run again."
lot of very odd hills people are dying on these days.
The left is fighting to the death for grooming kids and radical islamic terrorists.
I mean, OK, thats a choice
They can choose to keep losing elections.
Hey - if the Dems had won this latest election in 4 years that supposition may not have proven accurate. They would have 4 more years to consolidate their psy-ops and convince the majority of the gaslighting dogmas they are pushing.
The US would end up a one party state of weirdos and degenerates.
I think there was plenty there to merit the revocation of Khalil's status. But we quickened our slide away from due process with the last administration and it's worth debating if this is a speech violation now to make sure we're on the right track.
Immigration violations have never required due process. An agent can turn away a valid visitor with a visa for mete suspicion. The USSC has always upheld this. A green card is not a right but a privelege.
>Immigration violations have never required due process.
Should it? Should it not?
No. It shouldn't be required.
Imagine requiring everyone crossing a border being kept here for years for due process. That ends up being Biden's border policy.
There is no foreign right to enter or remain in the US. Full stop.
When you sign your green card application you even agree to remain in good behavior plus other conditions.
It is the same requirements us citizens have migrating to other countries.
It should not. Gueses do not get due process rights to remain indefinitely.
He violated the terms of his green card. He allied with a group that supports terrorism openly.
You do not get the protections of being a citizen if you are not one.
Seems to me there is an obvious and quick fix for this issue. He is being held in Louisiana, have the US attorney empanel a grand jury and charge him with providing material support for a terrorist organization. I am betting it would not be too difficult to indict him there with enough crimes that he would be facing 25+ years in Federal Prison. Then give him a choice, go to trial or self deport. I am guessing he is not just some random Palestinian if he was able to swing an Ivy League experience so he probably comes from one of those upper class Palestinian families…you know the ones that have been syphoning off Billions of aid and he would not want to risk going to actual prison.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/
True, it often is difficult to determine whether ambiguous speech is advocacy of political methods or subtly shades into a methodical but prudent incitement to violence. Communist Governments avoid the inquiry by suppressing everything distasteful. Some would have us avoid the difficulty by going to the opposite extreme of permitting incitement to violent overthrow, at least unless it seems certain to succeed immediately. We apprehend that the Constitution enjoins upon us the duty, however difficult, of distinguishing between the two. Different formulae have been applied in different situations, and the test applicable to the Communist Party has been stated too recently to make further discussion at this time profitable. [Footnote 19] We think the First Amendment does not prevent the deportation of these aliens.
Nice cite.
From what I've seen, Kalil is un-apologetically pro-"Palestine", and willing to die on the hill that an Arab population which mostly migrated into the area in the 7th century (more than 400+ Years after Roman occupiers invented a name for the land which made reference to a prior Greek occupation is somehow the "indigenous" owners of a city which includes the ruins of multiple Jewish temples destroyed by multiple different invasions millenia before the Greek Philistines were conquered by the Roman empire. I haven't seen any evidence presented that he's actually done more than advocate for dialogue with the protestors who were openly more extreme in their expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If they present something from him which openly supports either of those Iranian-backed terrorist groups instead of just for the idea of the nation which he claims to have ties to, I'm open to re-consider but so far I haven't seen the evidence.
I don't agree with his creatively abridged version of the region's history and convenience-based definition of "indigenous", but all of those ideas are constitutionally protected, and holding him without charges just because someone in the current administration says he's somehow "dangerous" doesn't seem any more justified than holding hundreds of rioters who ended up only being charged with misdemeanor trespassing charges for months (or was it years?) just because someone in the previous administration claimed that there had been an "insurrection".
This case isn't the direction that we should be continuing in, but it's hardly one that's begun with the current president, and won't end with the next administration even if Kalil is released and his Green Card guaranteed tomorrow.
Hey now, that name for the region goes back to the also foreign Egyptian name "Peleset", which is where the Greeks got it. Which makes them exactly as native as the current residents of Ohio. Well, OK, less so, since the people in Ohio are the folks that actually won the most recent conflict for the region, unlike the "Palestinians".
And violent South American gangs.
This whole take is remarkably stupid even for Reason. The federal government absolutely has the authority to hold a person pursuant to deportation. I have absolutely no problems with the federal government looking at a guest who wishes to become a resident and possibly even citizen, and sending them home for declaring that they wish to see the state of Israel obliterated. This is the most amazingly retarded hill to die on.
Yeah this is the cause de jour for the left but the underlying facts are pretty mundane. Predictably Reason ignores the facts and hitches a ride on the bandwagon.
Apparently, Reason believes that once you're given a green card, you are OWED citizenship and you must do nothing on your own to receive citizenship.
For the member of a terrorist supporting organization who vandalized campus, overtook buildings, worked with terrorist groups on training, and wanted the downfall of america.
Reason looks retarded ignoring the known facts.
They have such a hard on for food trucks. It is hard to fathom fighting against deporting foreign terrorist sympathizers and violent gang members. But here we are.
The Trump administration possesses neither wisdom nor courage, and it is now in the process of using claims of antisemitism on campus as a justification for grave violations of due process and free speech...
David French is a rabid antitrumpite!
David French reminds me of Sarcasmic in some ways. They would both back stuffing Jews into ovens if they were told Trump was against it.
Look at Mister Projection here who has said that Democrats and illegals don't deserve to live. He'd gladly murder people over political party and papers. Then he goes around saying anyone who disagrees with him is a Nazi. Could cut that irony with a knife.
You have a cite for that, Sarc, with an actual link to the comment?
Look at Mister Liar here who claims I said that Democrats and illegals don't deserve to live, when I did nothing of the sort. I did call Nazis "vermin" before though, which really bothered him for some reason.
Everything is projection with Sarckles. Even in his accusations of projection.
If I was a loser like Jesse with THOUSANDS of bookmarked comments I'd bring one up where you said those
peoplesubhumans don't deserve to live.But I'm not. So I won't.
Then you’re making an assertion with no citation, no evidence, and no basis in fact. Essentially, you’re trying to smear ML.
Isn't that his whole lie filled ignorant post history?
Sarc: im angry that someone saved my idiotic ramblings to throw back to me. Exposing me as a drunk weasel.
"But I'm not. So I won't."
You're a liar that's why you can't.
And Jesse has to bookmark your shit, because you constantly lie and say you never said something the second it becomes inconvenient for you.
He does it in the same threads even.
He still claims vermin is off limits, but only when a conservative says it. He had no comment given the multiple examples of Democrats calling conservatives vermin.
Yet you guys still don't understand why I mock you by saying "Democrats did it first and you didn't complain you hypocrite. That invalidates your criticism and makes whatever Trump does ok."
Poor sarc.
Every time I see Big Mac's new handle I can't decide if he's a sinker or a floater.
Either way, Sarc, we all know you’re full of shit.
1. Thanks for continuing to use your ex-wife’s nickname for me.
2. Will you be updating The List with my new handle?
I've never pitied a woman more than Sarc's ex. What sort of tragic lack of taste led to that temporary union?
Think of the spawn as well. That is your dad. Dad is a strong word though.
Probably not really her dad. Sarc has probably had whiskey dick even as a teen.
She was probably an alcoholic like him at the time.
I wonder if she's a Trump supporter. It would go a long way towards explaining his current mania.
Poor sarc.
David French has sold out, literally, every single value he ever claimed to own.
He has let down his wife's boyfriend.
Had to be Boehm quoting French.
And linking to BlueSky.
“As Matt Yglesias notes, there's a fair bit of irony in Trump launching an attack on Yemen, ostensibly to protect international shipping channels, while he's simultaneously engaged in a multi-front economic war against international trade.”
Only if you’re retarded and don’t know what words mean.
We are talking about retards that think words are violence and violence (theirs exclusively) is speech, so taxes being worse than theft and murder seems perfectly consistent with their demented worldview.
What's even more retarded is that Yglesias knows what the words mean but somehow thinks he's tricking people.
Apparently he tricked Boehm.
That's a low bar.
Have you met jeffsarc? They are easily fooled by the left.
Ya, these *daily* false equivalencies, which amount to a "GOTCHA!" on reddit are getting old.
I don't see the irony in the US retaliating against a foreign nation for attacking US navy ships. This sounds like 'Blue Sky Logic'
Is Yglesias some kind of numbnuts? Speaking of which, isn't he married to a Reason editor. That could explain things.
His old room mate is ENBs husband if i remember.
Wasn't it Suderman?
Believe it is ENB. Her husband worked for Vox.
Then I think Suderman was too, before Vox existed. This was back when Yglesias & Klein et al were known as the juicebox mafia or juiceboxers for short.
Agree but Trump attacked prior to US ship attack. It was in response to Houthi's stating they were resuming attacks, he took them at their word.
Here's my question though, how much trade that passes through the Red Sea is bound for America? Seems like securing that route is more a Eurasian problem. USA should either get paid for protecting the route or let the Houtis attack any non American flagged ship.
Perhaps some of it originates from America. Presumably, exporters want to be able to continue exporting as much as importers want to continue importing.
It originates from the Cold War period when the US was 1. concerned with the spread of communism 2. an importer of energy.
We are neither of these now.
What I don't know is how much USA trade goes through the Red Sea?
Probably more than you think. The Suez Canal is a far shorter route from the Indian Ocean than going around the Cape. Pretty much once you hit the Med it's a straight shot through the Straits of Gibraltar to the East Coast.
Oh I know some does. What would surprise me is that we were the largest recipient of trade through the Canal. Seems like we may pay more for it's protection then those who benefit the most from it.
A lot of that is because of the Suez Crisis and Britain and France fucking up the crisis.
Additionally, American Flagged vessels would use the Canal when delivering to Europe from the West Coast.
Over the Panama Canal? That's a shorter route by far, but perhaps Panama is capacity-limited so some cargo is sent through Suez instead.
If shipping time matters, send the cargo across the USA by rail, then load it on ships to cross the Atlantic. It's the shortest as well as the fastest surface route, but 3,000 miles by rail might cost more than around the world by container ship.
About 15% to 20% of US trade transits Suez. Big enough that it matters, a lot.
So... Yes, we are undoubtedly pulling more than our own weight, but when have we not for the last hundred plus years? It would be nice if someone else had a sack, but even if they don't and can't, it may be worth it to secure our chunk even if it helps others out disproportionately.
The Houthis declared they were going to resume waging war on the rest of the world. The US has an interest in keeping the sea lanes open, and we are one of the few countries that can.
It wasn't an attack on Yemen but a designated terrorist group attacking shipping lanes.
Eric is more dishonest than Jeff.
Let's get back to using the right names for what these groups do, and maybe it will help us get to the appropriate penalties. The Houthis and other Red Sea predators are pirates, not terrorists. The Hamas action of Oct 7 was not terrorism, it was an invasion for the express purpose of committing vast war crimes. Terrorists might be imprisoned, but pirates and war criminals should be hanged as fast as they can be captured and tried.
Not that this informs us as to the subject of the original article, namely what to do about _speech_ advocating terrorism, piracy, war crimes, etc. (Ignoring for the moment that Khalil probably also rioted and harassed Jews on campus in the USA, which is not speech) American citizens very clearly have the rights to tell everyone that they are idiots who advocate for pure evil. But I recall a long-standing policy that blocked foreigners from entering or remaining in the USA if they advocated Communism. Has that policy been declared unconstitutional? Unless it has, the same principle applies to advocating for Hamas: We don't want any more people that think that way, so if you show you do, you can go back where you came from.
I'll note who the author of the quote is and who the author of this piece is.
Well, it is Boehm quoting him, so...
It's Boehm. That is the case to begin with.
Now we may be seeing the REAL reason behind the COVID shutdowns: dry run for the "climate shutdowns".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/why-some-scientists-think-we-could-soon-have-climate-lockdowns/ss-AA1AZBiK
"In recent years, the idea of climate lockdowns has been floated by some scientists as a potential measure to combat the growing threat of climate change. While the concept may sound extreme, it is rooted in a sense of urgency to protect our planet. The notion of a lockdown, which many of us became familiar with during the COVID-19 pandemic, draws parallels to limiting activities that contribute to climate change. This article delves into the reasons why some experts believe climate lockdowns might become necessary, exploring the possible implications and what they could mean for our daily lives."
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/592011-coming-soon-climate-lockdowns/
"This isn’t a right-wing fever dream. Calls for harsh government measures in the name of saving the environment are already in the parlance of influential organizations and figures. In November 2020, the Red Cross proclaimed that climate change is a bigger threat than COVID and should be confronted with “the same urgency.” Bill Gates recently demanded dramatic measures to prevent climate change, claiming it will be worse than the pandemic. Despite millions of people having died from COVID, former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney last year predicted that climate deaths will dwarf those of the pandemic. Lockdowns, which significantly reduced carbon emissions during 2020, could be the solution. After all, the EU’s climate service gloated, the first COVID lockdown may have saved 800 lives.
I will burn tires.
I hear the left is expecially fond of you if you put the tire around a political opponents neck, fill it with gas, the set it on fire
Interesting concept.
I wonder who will be willing to enforce such a lockdown if they, or their children, faced this fate.
Walz's wife loves the smell.
Necklacing is over too fast. Give these environazis just what the claim to want - a fully net-zero house, located north of Lake Superior. Build it of renewable local materials - a log cabin, plastered with mud to seal the cracks. Give it a heat-pump for heating, with no combustion-based backup. Keep it off the grid; it has a wind turbine, some solar cells, and an EV battery for backup. That barely-affordable battery will keep the heat pump running for a couple of hours after the sun goes down and the wind dies, for whatever good the heat pump can do against -20 degrees outside.
This is why humanity needs Covid Nuremberg trials. To ensure that the Davos ruling class and global bureaucracy never try to get away with something that malevolent again.
I support this.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I doubt we’ll get such without some kind of war against the Davos crew.
Acceptable costs.
""Covid vaccine damage consultants paid more than victims""
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/covid-vaccine-damage-consultants-paid-more-than-victims/ar-AA1B2kcl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=13df10f416a2475bbaeb3b4465e07fbc&ei=235
What could be more thrilling / empowering to a corrupt power hungry authoritarian?
"Hey you, with the wrong opinions. Ya, you! Go stay in your house for a week, no AC, no TV, keep the energy use to a minimum. Its for the climate"
"But why, hurricanes aren't actually increasing, no one is actually dying, and none of your prescriptions are actually changing anything..."
"SHUT UP BIGOT THATS WHY! *Baton smash*"
As Ken Schultz once wrote, this is why there are more "climate deniers" than "string theory deniers".
Will we also get a break from the lockdowns to get some peaceful protesting done when/if someone ODs in police custody?
Madness.
No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card...
You have an inalienable right, given by our Creator, to speech but not to a green card? Even on Saint Patrick's Day?
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident
Your Rights as a Permanent Resident
As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:
Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions
See 8 USC 1227: Deportable aliens for some of the "actions that would make you removable under immigration law".
Deport me, I'm Irish.
However highly you rate REASON magazine, the City Journal is considered top of the crop --- and they are not heartless and stupid like this article is
Mahmoud Khalil Doesn’t Deserve to Be in the U.S.
The former Columbia University student has been a ringleader of anti-Semitic activity and pro-Hamas demonstrations.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/mahmoud-khalil-arrest-columbia-deport-hamas
Not many here rate reason highly.
Bohem really is a peice of shit progressive shill.
He has the iq and the logic thought process of reddit.
That's where the twenty-twenties Reason Foundation hunts for new staff and gets all its good ideas.
To be fair, Boehm and people like him are afflicted with 'Blue Sky' syndrome; or BS, for short. It goes along with their ED problem (that is, Elon Derangement).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shutdown-fight-rips-open-old-wounds-for-democrats/ar-AA1AZzgW
“Change of heart on the filibuster, I see!” Sinema wrote on X, referring to an article where Ocasio-Cortez said she felt a “deep sense of outrage and betrayal” at Schumer. She included an old post where Ocasio-Cortez slammed her for supporting the filibuster, calling for Sinema to be primaried.
Now, many Democrats have expressed their concern with Senate Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to use it to push back against the funding bill that none of them agreed with. And they’re trading quips with Sinema about it online.
Ocasio-Cortez argued in response to Sinema that the filibuster has primarily targeted legislation proposed by Democrats, but with Republican legislation it has fallen flat.
“Could have proved us wrong,” she wrote on X. “Instead they proved the point.”
Sinema responded minutes later that “zero Senate Democrats” support the filibuster, but 38 voted to use it on Friday.
She also singled out House Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
In an old post, Japayal outlined legislation that could not be passed with a filibuster in place, calling to abolish the “Jim Crow filibuster,” a reference to how the maneuver was used to preserve segregation and prevent several civil rights bills from passing in the mid-1900s.
“Just surprised to see support for the ‘Jim Crow filibuster’ here,” Sinema wrote on X.
Khanna hit back at Sinema’s post, arguing the filibuster had been responsible for burying any attempts to raise the federal minimum wage and had hurt Democrats in the 2024 election.
“Had we raised the wage & delivered childcare we could have had President Harris,” Khanna wrote on X.
Sinema called it “a breathtakingly undemocratic take” that eliminating the filibuster to block Republican debate and pass Democrat-led legislation would allow Democrats to win elections.
And when asked about the 38 Democrats who voted to use the filibuster against the funding bill, Sinema said on X, “Yes dear the hypocrisy is the point.”
Sinema didn’t pull any punches against her fellow Democrats over the weekend. It was funnier than hell to read.
Yeah. It was great. But she still supports terrible policies. Just has some standards.
Sounds like a Tulsi scenario
“Had we raised the wage & delivered childcare we could have had President Harris,” Khanna wrote on X.
Well, thank fuck for the filibuster then...
It is funny watching democrats demand higher wages for citizens while at the same time demand we import near slave labor for jobs. They really do want to price the low wage citizen class out of work.
How else are you supposed to create more people on welfare and keep them dependent on daddy government?
Seems perfectly fine when your real goal is creating an army of welfare dependents to vote for you and puffing up their political power with illegal alien replacements for the "lost" workforce.
They're importing them to build up blue states census numbers and for votes and to fortify the Welfare Industrial Complex.
One of the points that Trump and others have pushed in regards to tariffs is that they will force companies to onshore and hire American workers at fair wages. You can argue if this would actually happen or not (I know many anti-tariff people will say not), but it’s funny that the Democrats argue for wage increases by government fiat and against cajoling the private sector into action with tariffs.
Almost like they care more about being able to use the force of government to directly control businesses for the good of the people. I wonder if we have a word for that?
Yeah, there's a roughly zero percent chance that's true. Harris was perhaps the dumbest candidate for President in my lifetime. Democrats knew it, too, since they made her their candidate in the most undemocratic way possible.
Amusing that not holding primaries and just declaring a harpy as your candidate isn't anti-democratic but somehow Trump winning in both primaries and the election itself is. This simply shows that Democrats don't even know what Democracy is which sort of begs the question of what they think Democracy is. It sure seems like they think it's 'Democrats winning' as opposed to will of the people. If they don't value the opinions of their own base, why would anyone think they'd value anyone else's opinions?
They get extra retard points for being 'for democracy' but they also hate 'populists'.
https://youtu.be/R7Ed6a6Oe1Q
Liberal Wakes Up From a Coma in 2025
"Tell me everything...like is Trump in prison...No. He's in the White House."
The part where the BF explains that there was no primary..."that was kind of a coup".
"Fauci, god I bet he's got a nobel prize now...No. He's got a presidential pardon for crimes against humanity..."
I don't understand Sinema's argument.
The continuing resolution needed 60 votes in the Senate, and got 62. The rules on the vote had a filibuster baked in.
It only needed 60 due to filibuster rules.
There's only 53 Republicans in the Senate. The CR passed because multiple Democrats voted for it because it was NOT a hill they wanted to die on.
If Democrats choose to use the filibuster, they can prevent reaching the 60-vote cloture limit. Fully expect filibusters on Trump/GOP agenda going forward though.
Which WAS Sinema's point, had Dems killed the filibuster, the CR could have passed with ZERO D votes, as could all the rest of Trumps agenda. All those who complained about Republican use of the filibuster and demanding that the Democrats get rid of it will certainly be at the front of the line demanding that they use it. Indeed many like AOC and Pramila Jayapal (I always see 'paypal' in my head) WERE already demanding they use it but Senate Dems chose not to on this particular measure.
Which is damn funny as AOC and Jayapal were all for getting rid of the filibuster just last year.
(I always see 'paypal' in my head)
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one.
...the German national was stripped naked, subjected to a cold shower, and not allowed to eat, drink, or sleep.
Normally you'd get a "you know who else" line here, but I have no doubt that federal agents stationed in Boston would engage in this kind of behavior.
With treatment like that you think he was standing peacefully on the Capitol lawn
Another punchline would be
But enough about the German porn industry
At least no one mentioned the war
Internment camps would solve all of this.
The Trump administration is cowardly.
Just ignore the fact that multiple political operatives launched coordinated lawfare against him his family and his supporters. They even admitted they would stop if Trump dropped out. Also keep going after at least 3 assassination attempts.
You can call trump a lot of things, but coward is not one of them.
Fuck the nyt, and fuck off bohem fo thinking those Marxists are good to be quoted.
At least the House is starting to look at impeaching the judges who allowed the shit.
Patel also says he opened an investigation into multiple FBI investigations into Trump.
They need to get those impeachments filed yesterday.
Believe the judge who issued the order to turn around planes was filed yesterday. He is the one who gave clinesmith probation for altering evidence on a FISA.
The Trump administration seems to have defied that judicial order by deporting 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador before the order could be blocked—and then refusing to turn the planes around (and possibly having more take off) after it had been.
The judge should have sent the U.S. Marshals to shoot the plane down!
ha! 😉
As Matt Yglesias notes, there's a fair bit of irony in Trump launching an attack on Yemen, ostensibly to protect international shipping channels, while he's simultaneously engaged in a multi-front economic war against international trade.
Yeesh.
Matt Yglesias takes are the absolute bottom of the Roundup
Didn't he say it was great that the media convinced voters that Trump's tax cuts only benefitted the wealthy when that was not remotely true?
Why should anybody believe a word he says on any topic?
Scientists and public health officials "might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public" about the origins of COVID-19...
Lol. I guess now we can talk about this shit. I thought it would take longer.
So now we can advocate starting a land war in Asia?
God you're a fucking idiot.
I didn't know Covid was Sicilian.
Can Eric even admit to the open censorship? NYT barely touched it.
The usual suspects still trust the experts.
President Donald Trump claims that the last-minute pardons issued by outgoing President Joe Biden are "void, vacant, and of no future force of effect."
I thought for sure Trump would try to preserve the notion of the preemptive pardon for the end of his second term. I guess you're going to be on your own at The Hague, Elon.
I think it's not so much the pardons and who got them, as such, but that they were probably issued by staffers using the autopen instead of actually processed by Biden himself as required.
A forged pardon is certainly problematic and could be dealt with on those terms without calling into question the president's constitutional ability to issue pardons.
Particularly since Trump is putting his signing sessions on YouTube for everyone to be able to see.
I think that’s why Trump has been recording his signings. No one can doubt his signatures and challenge them.
I suspect that's just showmanship considering that I've seen analysis that indicates that Trump also uses the autopen. It's not terribly likely that he manages to sign documents exactly the same every time. No one does.
Trumps policy is no autopen for any major or effective legislation/pardons/EOs.
Maybe, but the fact remains that an autopen is still clearly being used in at least some circumstances.
And some of them were done when Biden was 100% not in DC, even though the pardon says it was signed in DC.
The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
Perhaps they are not going after the preemptive pardon but the ambiguous pardon? Call it the Otter Pardon, and just list all your crimes on it before leaving office.
I am not going to stand here while you badmouth the United States of America!
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
A silver lining in an otherwise awful trade war: Canada might scrap some of its bad booze laws.
They should thank their president, DONALD TRUMP.
Key word "might". Canada has more inter-provincial tariffs than tariffs against US goods.
Eastern Canada keeps itself afloat by robbing Western Canada while at the same time blaming it for the fact that they don't already have a socialist paradise.
“Key word "might".”
This was my response the other day when the article was first posted. Reason is giving a lot of screen space praising something that hasn’t actually happened.
A record-high share of consumers think business conditions are worsening...
Could be true, or could be they listen to corporate journalists. Nothing is real anymore.
I can always trust my own wallet.
Most producer surveys are very optimistic due to all the regulatory removals being pursued. Boehm isn't an economist though.
Everyone wants to leave out the criminal aspects, or gloss them over as subservient to the free speech aspects.
This is equivalent to saying you can't prosecute a terrorist in a bank holding people hostage until he gets free TV time.
Everything I have read says he was part of the trespassing and physically violent group that blocked Jewish students going to classes. Why do none of you hand wringers address that criminal activity? Ignoring it, or using weasel words like "conduct that might be reasonably construed as criminal behavior", just makes you look like apologists that want to excuse bad behavior just because it's in support of unpopular speech.
Seems pretty cut and dry.
You are here as a guest, contingent on good behavior.
You commit crimes, harass citizens, and openly support a terror group.
Bye felicia.
Whatever you 'have read' about his 'criminal activity' is news to those who detained him. He is not being charged with any criminal activity. He is being 'charged' for being incompatible with US foreign policy.
No it's not. It's only news to idiots like you who stop at the CNN headline. For example claiming he has to be charged with a crime. That's not required retard.
See that's one of the issues. If they would have charged him with a crime, then he would be entitled to substantive due process (and the typical rights any criminal defendant has including right to counsel, right to a jury trial, etc...). Seems this administration would prefer a shortcut.
And not just for this matter but in most matters. Declaring specious 'emergencies' or 'invasions' to skirt the normal operation of the rule of law or checks and balances. It's a very troubling pattern. And when the Courts push back, the Courts are berated for being activist judges and the administration's cheerleaders call for the removal of the judges rather than simply following the law. Their contempt for the law and a co-equal branch of government is obvious. Hence, all the made up emergencies.
You're not a lawyer. The actual federal regulations have been posted here many times including below. You still say dumb, non legal shit.
I was responding to a comment about his 'crimes.' And the fact that he isn't facing any criminal charges.
It is an absolute fact that this administration is abusing emergency powers. What exactly is the energy emergency Trump declared? Is record fossil fuel production a problem that needs addressed with emergency powers? No, of course not. But it does allow his administration to bypass the EPA, the Clean Water Act, etc... Trump has declared some 150 emergencies. Almost all the tariffs are a result of some imaginary emergency or other. Must be a real emergency when he can announce a tariff one day, then remove it the next! The emergency must have miraculously vanished just to reappear again a couple weeks later. Same for the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act which allows emergency powers to bypass normal immigration processes. ITS ALL BULLSHIT and a naked power grab. Many of the executive orders declaring all these fake emergencies were prepared in advance of Trump even taking office and are premised on nothing more than a desire to act quickly without checks and balances. Well fuck that and fuck you for supporting it. If you want to be ruled by a dictator so bad move to Russia or something. Kings and petty tyrants are not welcome here.
Khalid the hamas homie is being deported under INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act). There is no order under emergency powers.
I was not talking about Khalid - Trump via executive order invoked the Enemy Aliens Act to deport Venezuelans to El Salvador. Another executive order declared cartels 'terrorist organizations' so as to make dealing with them easier and to bypass due process.
The point is the pattern. The emergency declared on the southern border declared on day 1 allowed him to now send military troops; troops who are now being deputized as border patrol agents. Something he wouldn't be able to do absent the executive order declaring the 'emergency.'
Each of the various tariffs are predicated on some 'emergency.' As stated, Trump has declared something like 150 emergencies. If you don't agree, fucking fact check my statement. And most if not the majority of the emergencies ARE FAKE. Like the energy emergency. The United States is not experiencing an energy emergency but by simply declaring it; his administration can bypass statutes to make permitting easier and allow permits in locations that otherwise would not be allowed. So when someone in a position of authority takes acts deliberately in bad faith to get around laws that would otherwise restrict their conduct; what do you call that? Is it not a naked power grab? Are you people so MAGA blind that you cannot see what is obvious to everyone else?
No, you’re just blinded by your own ignorance.
"And most if not the majority of the emergencies ARE FAKE."
No, they're real. Trump declared them, therefore they are, according to the laws that allow him to make those declarations and invoke the powers accordingly.
I'll grant you that other people might look at the same conditions and NOT think that they are severe enough to constitute an "emergency", but that's a different matter altogether. Since only the President's determination, by law, makes any difference.
Kings and petty tyrants are not welcome here.
LOL! You wrote this from Chicago?
He’s not really an attorney. He just plays one for his buddies under the Dan Ryan Expressway at Canalport.
It is not a fact.
And if you paid any attention beyond CNN headlines you wouldn't be confused on the revocation of visitor status under student visas or green cards.
Declaring specious 'emergencies' or 'invasions' to skirt the normal operation of the rule of law or checks and balances. It's a very troubling pattern.
You didn't complain when Democrats did it, that makes it ok.
/Trump's retarded defenders
Compare sarc here characterizing having principles as retarded, but in other comments he blasts others (usually wrongly) for basing their criticisms on the team instead of consistent principles.
Its amusing he not even bright enough to realize he's contradicting himself.
Tell you what. When you retards stop excusing whatever Trump does by saying Democrats did it first, then I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?
No one is excusing anything using that, Strawcasmic.
Had to mute Sarc. It's been the same nonsense for months now. I cannot remember the last point he made.
Sarc has a point. It’s the one on top of his head.
Why would I want you to stop discrediting yourself?
See, the way deals work is that in order to get something you want you have to give me something I want.
And you’re one of Trump’s Retarded Detractors.
Nobody except sarc believes you’re an attorney.
Then maybe Congress should get up off their lazy butt and actually do their job. Having delegated power away, they can claw it back. They evidently would prefer being lazy and blaming everyone else.
Government sucks. Whining about that basic fact without making any effort to fix it is like complaining snow is wet while refusing to wear a raincoat or use an umbrella. There are ways to fix it. Try some. Make some suggestions. Don't just whine.
""Declaring specious 'emergencies' or 'invasions' to skirt the normal operation of the rule of law or checks and balances. It's a very troubling pattern.""
Like calling for a climate emergency?
That's for a green cause. I've often wondered who came up with that "green" label and if they did it as a joke on "greenbacks".
That's a good one.
Gore was making green from the green.
This administration is using that legal shortcut but it was already on the books. From I believe 1952 and originally intended to deport alleged communists during the McCarthy era.
The specific provision is:
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
The provisions of that law dealing with criminal activity require a conviction. So yeah - due process AND an actual crime. Like all bad laws - in this case allowing executive arbitrariness to encroach on even constitutional protections - it remains on the books forever. To be used when handy for a tyrant.
"An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."
Not a word requires a conviction of any sort.
That's because the section on crimes is titled 'crimes' not 'foreign policy'
And is enforced by the Attorney General not the Secretary of State
...and?
The relevance to this case is...what?
The notice to appear in federal immigration court inside a LA detention center - issued to Mahmoud Khalil - which cites section 237 (a)(4)(C) (i) of the act. Which is precisely the 'C' titled 'Foreign Policy' which I quoted above.
Which still requires no court input.
They are under no obligation to take him to court. He is the self-professed negotiator for a pro-terrorism group, one that would have blocked him from getting a green card in the first place.
He is the self-professed 'negotiator' for a group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
Not Hamas. And bluntly - that BDS movement is what is considered dangerous to the Wall St crowd of alumni/donors (influential in managing university endowments) and the Israel lobby (influential in funding politicians). 38 states have passed 'anti-BDS' laws even though only a small minority of Americans support such laws.
Thia is really the purpose here. To conflate 'BDS' with 'Hamas' and to evoke a notion that BDS is entirely a foreign/alien creation. So that it will become illegal for anyone to oppose aid to Israel via either their elected pol or any independent actions (such as boycott or divestment).
This is when useful idiots like you serve a purpose.
Lol. The group that supports hamas and works with other terrorist organizations.
We get it JewFree, you hate jews.
The group is fervently pro-Hamas and anti-Western civilization. They also violently took over buildings and harassed Jewish students.
...oh, wait, you support harassing Jewish students.
Under certain provisions, the ability to deport aliens is an executive decision and does not hinge at all on any criminality.
If he had trespassed on the Capital and caused an evacuation while trying to stop the election from being certified then he'd be a patriot of the highest order.
And you’d be pleased if he were shot dead for trespassing.
That's Jeff.
Sarc would prefer for Khalil to be dragged around by his ankles across the border.
It’s hard to tell some days as Sarc white knights everything that spews out of Jeffy’s mouth. Even if not explicitly stated, Sarc agrees with the sentiment.
Fair.
I try to keep my trolls straight as they will use any slip of who said what to declare themselves innocent and you a liar.
They're still hiding the facts on Khalil: no mention of his joining an organization which expressly promotes terrorism and the "eradication of Western Civilization".
Before the internet this probably would have worked.
Jack Marshall explains why this is a close case.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/aiA8Y2yN/the-ethics-of-deporting-mahmoud-khalil-for-pro-terrorist-advocacy
If the courts rule that we cannot prevent known terrorism supporters from immigrating we will respond by ending immigration as long as that remains the case. This is a stupid path to take.
Basically. If courts won't allow it, then Trump can shut down immigration entirely. For as long as he wishes.
Whenever the President finds that the entry
of any aliens or of any class of aliens into
the United States would be detrimental
to the interests of the United States, he
may by proclamation, and for such period
as he shall deem necessary, suspend the
entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on
the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
deem to be appropriate.
Just wanted to say thanks for that EthicsAlarms blog, I've quite enjoyed it.
Thanks for that link, a nice summary this rag's writers should read.
I also got a kick out of this:
I have no idea if that was an auto-correct or intentional, but it sure spells(!) out the difference: open borders or open boarders.
French, a former First Amendment litigator, argues that this won't end with Khalil, and that "just as we rightly look back in shame at the excesses of McCarthyism, we will look back in shame at the excesses of this moment
The left's current practice of calling everyone who disagrees with them a fascist or Nazi suggests McCarthyism's return has nothing to do with Khalil, nor is there any shame in the tactic itself.
It didn't end with khalil. At least two foreigners on visas part of this group self deported after their visas were revoked.
The left has been engaging in McCarthyism for at least 15 years now, so it's curious that people only just now believe it's making a resurgence. It's weird that the response to the lefts McCarthyism is the only valid target for that moniker.
Yes, by all means read Ilya's screed, then make sure you read this comment, showing that the text of the law does not require a declaration of war, and in fact there was no declaration of war at the time. It's not as clear cut as you think it is.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/15/trump-invokes-alien-enemies-act-as-tool-for-deportation-federal-court-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-it/?comments=true#comment-10960364
See that "nation or government"? One might think they are one and the same, but then why include synonyms? Hamas fits the definition quite well.
I detest governments in general. They murdered 100-200 million civilians last century and continue doing so today. But lying about what a law says and pretending that ends the argument is a damned stupid way to get rid of governments.
Well, Somin does make some arguments that are so remarkably stupid that only a lawyer could come up with them.
Fabian Schmidt, an engineer who has held a green card since 2008, was reportedly detained and brutally interrogated by ICE at Boston's Logan International Airport.
Clearly this is racism.
Who are we calling the Nazi here? The German dude or the ICE guys? Somebody has to be the Nazi.
We have to know how they voted before we can answer that question.
The Deutsch Jussie Smollet, until proven otherwise.
There is a statutory basis for seeking deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil.
Any alien who-
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of-
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
This is correct. If you dont want the president exercising these powers, don't give them to him.
But the shitlibs will never learn this.
Under VII, Khalid is toast. Adios.
Fabian Schmidt, an engineer who has held a green card since 2008, was reportedly detained and brutally interrogated by ICE at Boston's Logan International Airport. A local NPR station, which spoke with Schmidt's relatives, reports that the German national was stripped naked, subjected to a cold shower, and not allowed to eat, drink, or sleep. He ended up in the hospital after the ordeal.
Did the US government violate Fabian Schmidt's rights? If not, why not?
Hey Lying Jeffy, still waiting for you to answer if the president has the authority to revoke a law firm’s security clearance?
You don't actually give a shit - well, not a good-faith one, anyway - about the answer, so I have no intention of giving you one. Go ahead and harass me all day about it if you want. If you don't harass me all day about that, you'll harass me all day about something else. I'm also frankly surprised you took that disgusting slander about me out of your nick. Is it because it made it too revealing to everyone that you are nothing but a sad little troll, who has nothing better to do than to harass anonymous Internet commenters all day?
It’s a legitimate question.
It could be a legitimate question if it was asked by anyone else. When it is asked by you, it is just another excuse to troll. So fuck off, Troll Mac.
That original discussion was several days ago. And yet here you are, still hounding me over it. It's not because you passionately believe in that cause.
It’s still a legitimate question.
"It could be a legitimate question if it was asked by anyone else."
The troll is you, Lying Jeffy. Stop being evasive and answer the question.
Fine, retard, I’ll ask it too.
Does the president has the authority to revoke a law firm’s security clearance?
So when can we expect an answer, Jeffy?
"So when can we expect an answer, Jeffy?"
He's on the same schedule as sarcasmic with sobriety.
Maybe = violate rights. He was intl traveler, not yet re-admitted to country (yet), and had two priors (weed, DUI). He was going to get heightened scrutiny.
What does the video of the interrogation show?
You get a DUI in the US, you do not get into Canada.
"That could be the first step towards trying to prosecute some of the people who got those pardons"
Is there where the daily "it's ok because the democrats did it first" post goes?
It's largely only democrats who have used autopen for major presidential actions. Namely Obama and Biden.
Pretty sure this is unprecedented. Though if he gets away with it then the next Democratic administration (that assumes we still have elections after Trump and that the Democratic Party hasn't been declared a terrorist organization) will do the same thing.
By the way, if you want me to stop saying "Democrats did it first..." then you guys need to stop excusing whatever Trump does by saying Democrats did it first.
Goddamn, I hate that fucking term, “unprecedented”. If a pardon issued wasn’t actually issued by the president, and was issued by an underling, then is it actually a valid pardon?
Like most things, sarc doesn't understand the actual issues in his comment, only the narrative MSNBC told him.
“that assumes we still have elections after Trump”
Lmao. Don’t ever accuse sarc of parroting left-wing talking points.
Well, obviously there was never another election after Trump won last time so it just must be true this time as well.
Just ignore the paradox.
"By the way, if you want me to stop saying "Democrats did it first..." "
By all means, keep it up.
The Trump administration seems to have defied that judicial order by deporting 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador before the move could be blocked—and then refusing to turn the planes around (and possibly having more take off) after it had been.
Was the Trump Administration wrong to ignore/defy the court order? If not, what are the conditions by which any president may justly ignore/defy a court order?
Donnie knows in order to "make Amercica great again" we must ditch the rule of law and these namby-pamby "Bill of Rights". They are for liberal pussies.
I mean, he told us all in advance that he was going to deport citizens. So it isn't a big surprise that he is going to ignore a court order about deporting Venezuelans.
Democrats ignored court orders first and you didn't complain you hypocrite. That invalidates your criticism and makes whatever Trump does ok. I mean, look at the Trail of Tears for fuck's sake! Jackson was a Democrat and he ignore the Supreme Court! That means Trump can do whatever he wants and it's ok because Democrats did it first!
Fuck me, it’s a retard ménage a trois. Go get a fucking room for your circle jerk.
Yahtzee. The retard trio.
I think I only have two people muted, and your summation quickly explains the diagonal line of "Comment hidden..." placeholders I see.
And did I mention that you didn't complain about it back in 1830? Well, you didn't. So that makes whatever Trump does ok.
Have you ever met a strawman you didn’t like?
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
I'm glad they ignored it.
Okay, so what is the standard by which any president may justly ignore/defy a court order?
Well, you could start by answering if the president has the authority to remove a law firm’s security clearance?
I've thought about your question long and hard, and here is my response:
https://tinyurl.com/5w52vzwy
It’s pertinent to the topic being discussed. It’s telling you won’t answer a very basic question about a topic you’re discussing.
Not a valid answer.
No, that would be you, Jeffy, you evasive fuck. Answer the question, troll.
Not clicking his bullshit link, but I assume it leads to his idea of a "good faith" response.
You're welcome to go to those countries and collect the people you're so concerned about. In case you were legitimately ignorant of the fact, they had been deported prior to the ruling so it's not really defiance unless you're going to classify a whole host of actions as "defiance".
As I understand the government's position anyone applying for residency with any affiliation to a terrorist organization or an organization that advocates for violence is inadmissible. This guy is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas and openly calls for violence against Jews and others. Had he declared his affiliations when applying for residency he would not have been admitted which makes his status illegitimate. He does not have to have committed a crime and the finding by the Secretary is the only due process required.
Sultanistic or neo-fascist? President Trump and 21st century ideology
...
Sultanism requires all individuals, groups and institutions to be subject to what appears to be the unpredictable and despotic intervention of the ruler who does not operate according to an ideology or a plan. Sultanism is, in this respect, a form of authoritarianism notable for the personal presence of the ruler in all elements of governance.
...
Trump’s choices for high office, including all offices exercising a capacity for coercion, are demonstrably based on personal loyalty rather than competence.
...
Yet while sultanism assumes unpredictability and a lack of ideology or plan, what has been clear from the outset is that Trump’s second term as president has in fact closely followed the radical Project 25 agenda.
Project 25 called for subsuming all executive functions under the president; diminishing the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; dismantling government bureaucracy and replacing it with private enterprise; cutting government services; intervening in and controlling arts, culture and public life; and a host of other changes aimed at dismantling government regulation. Critics have identified Project 25 as having fascistic qualities.
...
It is therefore necessary to clarify what is meant by “fascism”. Fascism is first and foremost a radical nationalist ideology which, because it reflects “national values”, varies from country to country. Euro-fascism, Putinist fascism and American fascism (and even our own One Nation’s half-arsed fascism) each reflect distinct characteristics.
https://johnmenadue.com/sultanistic-or-neo-fascist-president-trump-and-21st-century-ideology/
Brave article. Fatass Donnie could send his jackboots over to deport him.
So you’ve chosen a hit piece by a swamp rat from Australia who went to that cesspool called Columbia University. The article is full of the same tired shit that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. How can someone reducing the number of government agencies and employees be a fascist? Fascists (like yourself, Shrike) advocate for more government, more agencies, more employees, and even overlapping agencies that compete with each other for fiefdoms.
All Pluggo still has left are unhinged blog posts from furious Neocons.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
"Brave article"
Lol, shit talk Biden or the jab on the internet two years ago if you want to see what brave is about.
It's only a matter of time before Democrats are declared to be enemies of the state, and treated as such. And when that happens Trump's defenders will rejoice.
It's only a matter of time before Democrats are declared to be enemies of the state, and treated as such. And when that happens Trump's defenders will rejoice.
Right, just a matter of time.
Will sarc support it like he supported J6 arrests, bankruptcy for see defamation, every Trump trial, Flynn trial, impeachment?
Or is it different now?
He has never been a fan of equal justice.
Meanwhile his lefty boos continue to cause violence, overtaken buildings, kill conservatives, assault conservatives, vandalize cars and buildings, firebomb the same, etc.
Will Jesse stop telling the same lies a hundred times a day? Nope. He won't.
The walls are closing in.
The left is getting more desperate and shrill as they lose their advantages. In two months they've lost their censorship campaign, slush fund, tens of thousands of sinecures for left wing activists, and immigration votes.
Next the states should take on academia as Trump has the federal bureaucracy.
Given that, how long until the left becomes fully violent? They’re doing relatively petty crap right now from vandalizing Tesla dealerships to SWATing conservative commentators (and having pizzas delivered to them COD). I’m talking full-on riots and rebellion.
There won't be large scale riots because they won't have broad support which they need to cover themselves. Antifa can't function without other left wingers providing cover. Without Floyd or Vietnam they aren't going to have the numbers.
Maybe try to assassinate Trump?
Well, Schumer is afraid they will take a shot at him.
Dare we dream?
Enemy of the state, no. They are fellators of the state.
Enemy of the people, yes.
So, for all of you who are cheering on the detention of Khalil even though he hasn't been charged with any crime, because he said mean things.... Let's see where this slippery slope goes.
Here is a good summary on the process of denaturalization, or the revocation of citizenship of someone who was naturalized:
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
Fortunately, there are more due process safeguards for the process of denaturalization than there is for revoking green cards. The government has to prove to a court that the individual merits denaturalization, instead of using discretionary power entirely within the executive branch. (Whether or not Trump actually obeys these due process safeguards is another matter.)
One of the ways a person may be denaturalized is if the government can show that a naturalized citizen is not of "good moral character":
So, if speech is enough of a justification to take away a green card, then what is to stop the government from denaturalizing large numbers of naturalized citizens based on their speech?
"It has recently come to the government's attention that recently naturalized citizen Mohammed has posted lots of pro-Hamas comments on social media over the past several years. If the government had known this before his naturalization, the government would have revoked his green card and kicked him out. Therefore the government requests that the court strip Mohammed of his citizenship based on his pro-terrorist anti-American statements and send him back."
Why not? What's to stop this from happening?
So, uh, Jeffy, how much more straw do you think you can pack into this post? Your strawman has got to be as big as that wicker man from the movie.
Trump v.1 already ramped up the denaturalization efforts. So it's not like this isn't something they've already considered.
And if you are calling my argument above a 'strawman', then do I take it that you would be opposed to the government trying to denaturalize citizens over speech?
Like this giant strawman, Jeff?
So, if speech is enough of a justification to take away a green card, then what is to stop the government from denaturalizing large numbers of naturalized citizens based on their speech?
You posit something that is highly unlikely to ever happen under any circumstances whatsoever as a frame for your argument. Something you can tilt at more often than Don Quixote did at windmills.
If it's so unlikely to ever happen, then what is the harm in answering the question truthfully?
Why posit the question in the first place, Jeffy, except to try to get a response? Your question isn’t valid to begin with. It’s a lazy strawman.
It's the logical next step down the slippery slope that you and your team support. If a green card holder should be deported over speech, then why not try to denaturalize a naturalized citizen who was expressing the same type of speech while a green card holder?
That you hesitate to answer is a sign that you know that I am making a valid point here.
“That you hesitate to answer is a sign that you know that I am making a valid point here”
That’s an interesting standard that I’m sure you will apply consistently.
"deported over speech"
If you would drop this lie, you might be taken more seriously, on the Khalil issue at least.
Lying Jeffy lies. It’s what he does.
Dudette, he’s not being deported over speech. Just stop with that lie. It’s over his associations, his group’s takeover of a building, harassment of Jewish students, and lies on his application form. The last of which is grounds by itself for deportation.
And does not change the fact that your question is invalid.
The government did not charge him with lying on the form. If they did, that would have been a crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf
They don’t need to charge him according to the relevant statutes involved. All they need to do is revoke his green card status and deport. You’ve been told this several times now, sealion.
Did you read the form? The government did not claim that he lied on the green card application.
He's a leader of an organization that harrasses jews, and occupies buildings on behalf of Hamas. What more do you need, Jeff?
Meanwhile, a judge DID restrain Trump from revoking the security clearance of a law firm. What do you think about that?
Preventing terrorism supporters from coming to America is not an 80-20 issue, it's more like 95-5. So I'm just happy the left has chosen this as their core differentiator. Sing it loud sister!
Yup. Between the Palestine retards, the CRT retards, and the trans groomers the left is buying themselves at least another election cycle L, maybe more.
They are picking the 20 of every 80/20 issue
Would you be in favor of denaturalizing American citizens based on their speech?
Yep, Jeff tries to use this strawman to bait others into a response. Jeff, fuck off, dudette.
He says he wants to de-weaponize government, but he's a liar. He only wants it to be de-weaponized against himself and people he agrees with. Everyone else can eat shit and die in a prison cell.
Another unintentionally revealing comment. I wouldn't say keeping terrorism supporters out of America is a partisan issue because I see that as a broad goal for all Americans. But sarcs comment shows he understands opposing terrorism supporters is inherently anti-Dem / left.
A Kinsley Gaffe: when someone screws up and accidentally admits what they really believe.
I never said any of this liar!
— sarc next week
Fortunately, there are more due process safeguards for the process of denaturalization than there is for revoking green cards. The government has to prove to a court that the individual merits denaturalization,
Its important to note the process Jeffey objects to already includes due process requirements, but he still opposes removing terrorism supporters.
The other interesting comparison is whose free speech he supports. Now he presents himself as a free speech champion. But he supported the government when it colluded with big tech to suppress free speech, so he's not exactly an absolutist. It seems he doesn't care at all for free speech by those he hates, but he cares a lot about free speech by terrorism supporters. Now that we know his concern for free speech isn't the result of universal free speech advocacy we're left to wonder why he supports terrorism supporters rights over regular citizens rights.
Sometimes priorities are unintentionally revealing.
Notice how Marshal completely avoided the question.
Let me try again:
Would you be in favor of denaturalizing American citizens based on their speech?
Khalil is not being deported due to speech. Your question is, to be generous, unbelievably irrelevant.
Yeah he is. He's being deported because of his vocal activism. He wasn't charged with any crime.
It’s more than vocal activism, if you’ve bothered to look at anything other than MSDNC and CNN. However, your original opining about fully naturalized citizens is an invalid strawman argument.
One more time: He wasn't charged with any crime. Not even with a "support for terrorism" crime.
According to the statutes, he doesn’t need to be charged with a crime. His green card can be revoked for his activities and lies on his application form, and he can therefore be deported. Tough shit, Jeffy.
If he were a citizen he should be charged. Since he's not, that question is moot.
I know what the law says. It is vague, overly broad, and gives vast discretionary authority to the executive. Something that libertarians are normally opposed to. Yet in this case you all are supporting such a law because you like the result.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't be supporting the government's use of this law in this case.
His activities are his student activism. Again, did he do anything illegal? If so, why wasn't he charged with doing anything illegal?
What was the lie on his form?
Why would libertarians be in favor of immigration by people who openly advocate for violent, racist murderers (Hamas) and violence against Americans? Even for a pro-immigrant guy, you would advocate for some basic standards, no?
"I know what the law says. It is vague, overly broad, and gives vast discretionary authority to the executive."
Jeff likes to pick and choose unless you're charged with trespassing in a federal building and then it's 10 years hard labour.
I take freedom of speech and freedom of association seriously. I am not interested in having the government police the content of speech, and I am not interested in having the government police the nature of associations. That means people ought to have the liberty to say odious things, and people ought to have the liberty to associate with odious people. When it comes to speech and associations, in my mind, the line is crossed if the speech/association are a part of some criminal conspiracy to commit some crime. But in this case, there has to be a crime or at least the direct link to the commission of a crime. Simply saying "kill the Jews" is odious speech but it shouldn't be illegal. Simply associating with people who call themselves terrorists shouldn't be illegal. UNLESS there is some evidence that the group is planning a specific criminal terrorist act. I don't think there was any evidence that Mahmoud Khalil was directly planning an act of terror. His group was very rude to Jews and his group organized some protests that got out of control.
I take freedom of speech and freedom of association seriously. I am not interested in having the government police the content of speech, ,
Remember this was not the case just a couple of months ago. He argued then that any effort to stop the government directed censorship campaign was itself a free speech violation.
It's amusing watching someone claim to be such a pure civil libertarian knowing that they only support those rights for some people. But it's downright hilarious the "some people" he chooses to protect are terrorism supporters while he concurrently supports censorship targeted at regular Americans. This is why comparing their supposed principles in different circumstances is so enlightening.
He argued then that any effort to stop the government directed censorship campaign was itself a free speech violation.
Not true.
He argued then that any effort to stop the government directed censorship campaign was itself a free speech violation.
Not true.
Of course its true. We have to remember his only goal here is attacking anyone non-left. He'll adopt whatever persona is necessary to justify attacking the position of the moment. The key to recognizing this is identifying the philosophical contradictions between personas. Today he's a free speech absolutist supporting even terrorism advocates. But two months ago he was a free speech restrictionist.
The key elements that changed are whose speech is targeted and by whom, and that was enough for Jeffey to completely reverse his position. He was all for speech restrictions when the government was run by fellow leftists and targeting conservatives and libertarians. Today he claims he doesn't trust government making these decisions. What changed?
"I take freedom of speech and freedom of association seriously."
Yes. That's why you were so outraged when you found out that the Biden administration, the FBI, and the motherfucking CIA were secretly demanding that social media organizations remove and censor correct information about subjects like Hunter's laptop and the Covid 19 virus's provenance, in what was probably the biggest assaults on free speech outside of wartime, in American history.
Oh wait...
Marshal, YOUR only goal is to attack anyone non-right. And I'll note that you provided no proof for your claims about me. Why is that? Oh yeah it's because you're just making shit up.
You know we can read your old posts right?
Marshal, YOUR only goal is to attack anyone non-right.
False. But one of my goals, openly stated, is opposing and identifying propaganda.
And I'll note that you provided no proof for your claims about me.
In fact I provide ample evidence for my claims. Every regular reader can consider whether my references to your prior statements are accurate. You know they are.
“Even for a pro-immigrant guy, you would advocate for some basic standards, no?”
Considering he thinks we should let child molesters get asylum, I’m gonna guess he has no immigration standards.
"Vocal Activism"
Khalil has gone beyond speech. His group (in which he is a leader) has intimidated jewish students, occupied buildings, and called for murder of jews. He has taken these action on behalf of a known terrorist group, which has kidnapped and murdered Americans. If anyone can be deported, it's this fuck. I'm no immigration hawk, but if you're openly supportive of enemies of the US, then you're green card should be revoked, and you should be deported.
You and sarc are sad about this because you're also apologists for the same group.
His group (in which he is a leader) has intimidated jewish students,
That's awful, and it also sounds like a matter for the local authorities.
occupied buildings,
That's awful, and it also sounds like a matter for the local authorities.
and called for murder of jews.
That's speech - very odious speech - and that ought to be protected speech. UNLESS it was part of some conspiracy to commit a specific act of violence, which it was not.
He has taken these action on behalf of a known terrorist group
Okay, let's be honest here. He declared his group to be a part of Hamas. It's not like Hamas installed his group at Columbia. Since you declared yourself earlier to be "pro-McCarthyism" I understand why you would want to kick out anyone with associations that you don't like. I am much more hesitant to do so because I don't trust the government to make those decisions fairly.
I understand why you would want to kick out anyone with associations that you don't like.
Nope, just ones that are explicitly in favor of, and actively engaged in destroying the US (in the case of the Communist party), and explicitly in favor of imposing Islam, and actively engaged in killing and kidnapping Americans (in the case of Hamas).
He declared his group to be a part of Hamas.
His group has not only openly declared itself part of Hamas, but has also taken actions that align with Hamas' goals.
If you declare yourself to be part of a group that is actively engaged in killing and kidnapping Americans, you should be arrested (if a citizen), or deported (if a non-citizen).
Wouldn't real pro-immigration people recognize that there is a role for deportation in some cases? It seems like jeff wants no standards whatsoever for any immigrant - and in his case, his "pro-immigration" stance is really just cover for a nihilistic impulse. Which is why he defends creatures like Khalil, and defends rape by immigrants (he just ejaculated on her), etc.
If you declare yourself to be part of a group that is actively engaged in killing and kidnapping Americans, you should be arrested (if a citizen), or deported (if a non-citizen).
You are making it sound like Mahmoud Khalil himself was murdering Jews in NYC. That is not the case.
Should it be illegal to be a member of the KKK? After all, the KKK has murdered many thousands of Americans in the past. How about the American Nazi Party (it actually exists)? We all know how many millions the German Nazis murdered.
Wouldn't real pro-immigration people recognize that there is a role for deportation in some cases?
My standard would be that there must be some violation of rights. If you can show that Mahmoud Khalil, personally, directly, violated someone's rights, then I'll be the first one to say that he should be deported. But what I've seen, is that instead he said odious things and had odious associations and was a part of a group that possibly violated people's rights but was evidently not a big enough of a concern for the local authorities to do anything about.
<iI am much more hesitant to do so because I don't trust the government to make those decisions fairly.
This is an odd statement from someone who supported the government's censorship operation against American citizens. It seems you do trust government to make some decisions. The interesting differentiator is the word "fairly". People critical of the left's narrative, for example about the origin of Covid, do not deserve fairness as that was certainly not present in the campaign you support. Meanwhile those who support terrorism do deserve fairness, which in your usage seems to mean never allowing their ideas to have consequences.
So it seems Jeffey recognizes something specific about Khalil he supports thus earning this privileged status, and the only ideas we can attribute to him are that he supports terrorism and wants to eradicate Western Civilization. It's odd set of values to drive such esteem, but that's the nature of left wingers today. The more you hate America the more they welcome you as a kindred spirit and ally.
Oh there goes Marshal again, refusing to have a good-faith dialogue while stuffing words in people's mouths. Remember, Marshal never actually reads the words that people write, he only projects onto them what he thinks they believe. Go join Troll Mac in the troll pile.
Oh there goes Marshal again, refusing to have a good-faith dialogue
Let's all remember Jeffey's idea of a good faith dialogue is lying that those he disagrees with defended an apartheid supporter. So when he uses the term it doesn't mean what you think it means.
They don't call him Lyin' Jeffey for nothing.
those he disagrees with defended an apartheid supporter.
Not true.
never actually reads the words that people write, he only projects onto them what he thinks they believe.
Jeff, this is a fair description of your behavior with me today.
those he disagrees with defended an apartheid supporter.
Not true.
Of course it is. You lied that it was true, and now you lie about it because it shows the kind of person you are.
Jeff, this is a fair description of your behavior with me today.
Oh FFS. I have tried very hard to have a constructive dialogue with you.
Marshal, it's not true. I never claimed that you defended an apartheid supporter. I was mocking your claim instead, which you took to mean defending apartheid. This has been explained to you several times but you refuse to admit it because you would much rather put yourself in the role of the 'victim' because it makes it easier for you to attack me with it.
I never claimed that you defended an apartheid supporter. I was mocking your claim instead,
Abstract summary: I didn't do this because I did it for a good reason.
If you break it down into components even you should be able to understand.
Mockery and sarcasm are not the same as making a serious claim. Even someone like you can understand this. You are deliberately playing the victim card because you want to use it to attack me. I'm done trying to explain this.
occupied buildings,
That's awful, and it also sounds like a matter for the local authorities.
Or for local authorities to shoot him in the face for trespassing.
Immigration isn’t a local issue Lying Jeffy.
That's awful, and it also sounds like a matter for the local authorities.
The authorities should handle it, by deporting Khalil.
If the govt can't deport people who openly proclaim themselves as part of a terror group, who can they deport, Jeff?
"Yeah he is. He's being deported because of his vocal activism. He wasn't charged with any crime."
He's being tossed due to his association with terror-supporting groups. Associations he lied about in his application in the first place.
Which all the cause the feds need to revoke the green card and deport whether Jeffy likes it or not.
As a green-card holder, there does not have to be a crime for him to enter to domain of the "deportable aliens". Read the law. A simple determination by the Sec. State that his presence is detrimental makes him deportable.
It's so cute you think you're owed something.
But the interesting aspect to the story is the discrepancy in how Jeffey treats rights. While he has no concern for the government abridging normal Americans' rights he's all up in arms to increase rights for foreign terrorism supporters.
The left has always believed some pigs are more equal than others but this is a particularly offensive manifestation and should be better publicized.
Oh I know that you don't owe me an answer. I'm simply pointing out that you are refusing to answer the question.
You very clearly support deporting green card holders if they are "supporting terrorism", even if that support is only in the form of speech, and not for any specific terrorist act in the US. Well, what if the government can show that a particular naturalized citizen "supported terrorism" in the same way, before he/she was naturalized? Why wouldn't you support denaturalizing this citizen? I think the answer is that yes, you would support it, but you are too afraid to say so.
Nope. Organization of terror of occupation of buildings with the purpose of denial of entry and/or service to certain groups.
You are a hack.
Organization of terror of occupation of buildings
This doesn't even make sense.
with the purpose of denial of entry and/or service to certain groups.
Sounds like that is a matter between Mahmoud Khalil and Columbia University. Why is it a matter having to do with the federal government?
Because Khalil is OUR guest.
He lied on his application (had his support of Hamas been known, he would have never been approved).
Organization of terror of occupation of buildings
This doesn't even make sense.
Makes perfect sense no matter how aggressively you remain ignorant.
The government did not charge him with lying on the form.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf
Columbia abdicated hence where we are now.
Sounds like that is a matter between Mahmoud Khalil and Columbia University.
This is what Jeff actually believes.
If his pro-Hamas advocacy was known before his green card was issued, it should have been denied.
If his pro-Hamas advocacy was discovered after it was issued then it should be revoked. In either case, he has to go. If he were a citizen, the situation would be different.
Clear enough, shit-head?
If his pro-Hamas advocacy was discovered after it was issued then it should be revoked.
Okay then - since "pro-Hamas advocacy" is speech, then you agree with my claim that you support deporting him over speech.
If he were a citizen, the situation would be different.
How would the situation be different? Would you consider de-naturalization?
He should be at minimum charged for the crimes of his organization, which have already been listed (vandalism, harrasment, trespass). This is at minimum.
It's my view that the government should go further in this. These campus groups should be investigated, and at least some of their leaders and members are likely guilty of treason. When you proclaim yourself to be part of Hamas (a known terror group that has killed and kidnapped Americans), openly praise 10/7, openly support arson and other violent acts, constantly venerate Sinwar and other terror leaders - you've crossed the line, and can be prosecuted.
None of what I advocate above is above is anti-speech or even anti-libertarian in any way. Libertarians would still favor prosecuting traitors, no?
"since "pro-Hamas advocacy" is speech, hen you agree with my claim that you support deporting him over speech."
No. You constantly try to bring everything back to this lie.
See above, plus up and down the thread, by me and others, you lying fuck.
He should be at minimum charged for the crimes of his organization, which have already been listed (vandalism, harrasment, trespass). This is at minimum.
If there were actual crimes committed in this regard, it would seem to be a matter for the local authorities, either NYC or Columbia University. If they did not see fit to prosecute the matter then I don't know why the federal government should get involved.
No, I think that goes way too far, and yes it boils down to the government policing speech. Where do you cross the line between a person advocating for a radical point of view, and a person advocating for a point of view that is "treasonous"? Can you really trust the state to make that decision fairly? To a lot of people, libertarians are "traitors" by this standard because we want to radically reshape and downsize the government. Radical beliefs and radical speech should be legal. The line is crossed when there are acts of aggression that violate people's rights.
In the 1950s, I bet the sincere communist would say "I don't want to undermine America, I want to make America better, and I think communism is the path forward." We all here would disagree with that, but it's not treason.
Besides, abuse of treason laws have been the hallmark of every authoritarian government ever, because they deliberately conflate opposition to the government, with opposition to the nation itself. If today, communism or other radical ideologies are declared "treason", then what about tomorrow - would "Christian nationalism" be declared "treason"? Treason should be limited to its very narrow meaning, which is giving direct support to a foreign power during a time of war. That doesn't apply here.
No. You constantly try to bring everything back to this lie.
Well, you are trying to have it both ways. You want to argue that Mahmoud Khalil is being deported over "not just speech", but then you argue that it's totally fine if people WERE deported over just speech.
I bet the sincere communist would say "I don't want to undermine America, I want to make America better, and I think communism is the path forward."
This isn't what I'm talking about, as I've already made quite clear.
This isn't what I'm talking about, as I've already made quite clear.
But it really is. The 'patriotic communist' believed that America would be better if it was more communist. But the McCarthyites saw it as "support for communism = support for America's enemies". It is the same for all radical ideologies.
You want to argue that Mahmoud Khalil is being deported over "not just speech", but then you argue that it's totally fine if people WERE deported over just speech.
It's funny how you accuse others of "bad faith" arguing, and then post the most disingenuous shit like this. I'm not "having it both ways", jeff, I'm addressing two different things:
1. the real life situation, where Khalil has gone beyond speech.
2. Your made-up fantasy that Khalil has only engaged in speech, and nothing more.
The answer to both situations is the same - yes he can be deported.
Jeff. Khalil is not being deported over just speech. Ok? Is that clear enough? It's not what's happening. I and others have described to you repeatedly, ad fucking nauseam why he should be deported, for actions that go beyond speech.
But even if your magical fantasy world came to life, and Khalil had "only" spoken in favor of hamas, and had "only" vocally supported a group that committed mass murder, and the largest pogrom in decades, then yes the US has the prerogrative to check "no" on him. The US has no obligation to let in people who despise everything the US stands for, and openly express allegiance to our enemies. Yes there is a different standard for US citizens vs. immigrants. Why do you think there should be otherwise?
Do you have any standards whatsoever, for who can immigrate to the US? Any?
As a generally pro-immigrant guy, I double despise fucks like you, because you make us all look like cretins who want to let in any terrorist, rapist, etc.
But it really is.
No, it isn't. People who actively joined the communist party weren't just schmucks vaguely talking pie-in-the-sky nonsense about communism being better than capitalism. They were actively helping the USSR, which was our enemy.
Do you have any standards whatsoever, for who can immigrate to the US? Any?
My standards are:
1. Not a known criminal
2. Not carrying a contagious disease
My standards are:
1. Not a known criminal
2. Not carrying a contagious disease
Thanks for finally committing to something, a rare move by you and your ilk.
I agree with both btw. And by #1, Khalil is out, so thanks for accidentally agreeing with me there.
Obviously I would add a #3 - Open affiliation or support for known terrorists and other objectively defined enemies of the US, as identified by the US govt. This already exists, posted by someone esle here in this thread, btw.
You also failed to state what standard would be needed for #1...
When Khalil immigrated here, what crime was he accused of?
If you can show that Khalil personally, individually, provably committed a crime in which people's rights were violated, then I'd like to see that.
Thanks for finally committing to something, a rare move by you and your ilk.
Oh screw off. I am always presenting my ideas and what I stand for. It's you and your 'ilk' which are much more evasive and much more keen on just tearing everything down rather than establishing what they stand for. You are about the only one here who has said "yes, I do support deporting foreigners for only speech-based reasons". Most everyone else equivocates.
He's leader of a group that harasses jews, commits vandalism, and occupied campus buildings. As you've already been told eleventy billion times, Mr. "good faith"
But even if he hadn't done the above, the #3 I posted above is grounds enough for deporting him. You disingenuous fuck.
No, it isn't. People who actively joined the communist party weren't just schmucks vaguely talking pie-in-the-sky nonsense about communism being better than capitalism. They were actively helping the USSR, which was our enemy.
Oh that's not true. Do you really think every American Communist Party member was functionally a Soviet spy? Sure probably some of them were, but like any organization, you can't judge everyone by the actions of a few. Besides, espionage is wrong not because it's from communists, but because it's theft, so party affiliation doesn't matter. Did you see the movie Oppenheimer? Was he an enemy of America?
deporting foreigners for only speech-based reasons
Yes jeff, "speech based reasons" like openly proclaiming their allegiance to a terrorists, and openly denouncing the US and calling for it's downfall.
I think it would be a good idea to check the "no" column for immigration by someone who does that.
He's leader of a group that harasses jews, commits vandalism, and occupied campus buildings.
One more time - what crime did Khalil specifically commit? If a member of that group committed a crime, then prosecute that member. Otherwise, it's criminalization of freedom of association. Which I know you are fine with, but I view that as violation of his universal rights.
Yes jeff, "speech based reasons" like openly proclaiming their allegiance to a terrorists, and openly denouncing the US and calling for it's downfall.
Pointing out how terrible the content of the speech is doesn't change the fact that he has the right to say it.
I think it would be a good idea to check the "no" column for immigration by someone who does that.
I don't want the government policing speech, whether it's speech from citizens or speech from foreigners. Don't you think that type of speech policing can very easily be weaponized against citizens?
you can't judge everyone by the actions of a few.
I'm not, Mr "good faith". I'm judging Khalil, by his own actions, and self-expressed allegiance.
You keep bringing up the McCarthy situation - but in that case I'm also for judging the individuals involved. Those who actively joined the CP and were in government positions should have been investigated. This includes Oppenheimer, who to my knowledge was investigated, and cleared.
No, you are holding Khalil personally responsible for the actions of everyone in his group. I'm still waiting to hear what are the crimes that you think he personally committed, not ones that some other person did.
I'm judging Khalil as a leader of the group, jeff. The leader directs the actions of the group, including the proclamation of loyalty to Hamas that you already acknowledged.
Talk more about "bad faith" jeff.
He's not Captain Kirk, he's not personally responsible for everyone in his organization. So I will take this to mean that you cannot prove that he personally committed any crime. Which is fine, just say so.
By the way, Khalil denies being "the leader" of the group, only one of the spokesmen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj5nlxz44yo
how terrible the content of the speech is doesn't change the fact that he has the right to say it.
And the US has the right to kick him out on the basis of it. But again, jeff, you're jumping back and forth between the fantasy verison of the situation and the real life version.
Talk more about bad faith, jeff.
But again, jeff, you're jumping back and forth between the fantasy verison of the situation and the real life version.
Not true. Free speech is a universal right of all humankind. He has the right to say those things and the US government is violating his rights by incarcerating him based on that reason. So no matter what the law says, it is absolutely right to say that he has the right to say those things no matter how odious the speech is.
The US government has the power to kick him out, that doesn't mean they have the just authority to do so.
In the real world, leaders are held responsible for what their organizations do.
and the US government is violating his rights by incarcerating him based on that reason.
They're not incarcerating him, they're deporting him.
It's pretty simple, jeff. I'm opposed to Roosevelts internment camps, but if some individual Japanese were openly proclaiming their allegiance to the emperor, yeah, I would've been in favor of arresting those.
“My standards are:
1. Not a known criminal
2. Not carrying a contagious disease”
1. Didn’t you advocate that known child molesters be let in through asylum because they could be persecuted by their government?
2. Didn’t you bitch and moan when Trump tried shutting down travel from China and closing the borders during Covid?
Of am I thinking of someone else?
You’ve been told that it’s more than just speech yet you persist in lying about it.
It’s Lying Jeffy. Lying is what he does.
"yet you persist in lying about it."
I never expected anything else from Jeff.
No. But I'm mostly fine with deporting green-card holders based on their speech, actions, and affiliations with (open support of) terrorist organizations.
No.
But I’m sure you see the difference between a citizen and a guest, right?
Oh wait, you don’t believe in US borders, so you probably don’t see the difference.
Welcome to citizenship being granted by Congress.
Write to them.
Khalil clearly lied on his green card application since he did not disclose prior activities (2023) related to designated groups, and that alone is cause for revocation. You cannot lie about anything asked by the process.
Not only that, the timeline seems to show he obtained it within 23 months of arriving in the US. That violates the minimum waiting period and someone above ignored rules to achieve this. How was this even possible? Why would someone expedite this? It is somewhat preposterous.
Jeff's comments today and elsewhere demonstrate that he doesn't care if Khalil is pro Hamas or not. He thinks the US should ignore Khalil's activities. I maintain that this is because he's also sympathetic to Hamas, not because he's pro-islam, but out of a nihilistic kinship with them - similar to the "queers for palestine" idiots.
I'm not "sympathetic to Hamas". I don't support terrorism at all. I value liberty for its own sake. That is the only 'angle' that I have here. I see Mahmoud Khalil as someone who is being punished for exercising his rights, rights that are universal to all humankind. I support his rights to the same extent that I support the rights of Nazis or communists or Christian nationalists or what-have-you to advocate for their views.
I support his rights to the same extent that I support the rights of Nazis or communists or Christian nationalists or what-have-you to advocate for their views.
If this were true Jeffey wouldn't have supported the governments censorship campaign against non-leftists. So to understand the full truth of Jeffey's beliefs we need to recognize what is different about this terrorism supporter who desires to eradicate Western Civilization that makes him worthy of these rights when regular non-leftists are not.
the governments censorship campaign against non-leftists
Now you are just making stuff up. There was no "government censorship campaign against non-leftists". So very obviously, I didn't support something that didn't exist.
Of course there was.
https://reason.com/podcast/2025/02/27/matt-taibbi-the-collapse-of-the-censorship-regime/
Dudette, he’s not making it up. That campaign has been well documented by many, especially people like Matt Taibbi.
Are you a liar or a fucking idiot?
Yes. But in this case Lying Jeffy is lying.
But Jan 6'ers --- FUCK those guys, right?
You're aware they did less than the Columbia animals, who were holding maintenance people hostage during their invasion.
who were holding maintenance people hostage during their invasion.
It's just speech, dude.
I'm not "sympathetic to Hamas"
Riiiiight...
what's to stop you from knowing the truth?
He’s not here to know the truth, he’s here to lie for the left.
true ... i'm an optimist
He's not a naturalized citizen. He's a permanent resident alien and the terms of his continued presence carry a different set of rules than those that apply to a citizen. Much like guests at one's home or even paying guests at a hotel are not 'tenants' let alone homeowners and different laws apply to them.
None of what you say here applies to Khalil.
You do realize that naturalized citizen is a completely different category than resident alien? So, of course, it has greater protection and standard of proof?
And, again, Khalil belonged to an organization with the rather grandiose goal of not only overthrowing the American government by violent means or otherwise, but also the entirety of Western Civilization. It is a damn sight more than "mean things".
He knows all that. It doesn’t matter, it’s his job to lie for the left, so that’s what he does.
Hey girls. You know who you are. When the browser logged me out I saw Woodchipper trying to get you girls to all to put me on mute (and you wonder why I compare you to catty teenage girls.) To him and the retards he was talking to, I say please. Do it. Then there will be fewer grey boxes after all my comments.
There are a number of people here who put you on mute due to your retarded screeds chock full of strawmen and false equivalencies, and the simple fact that you seem to never learn a fucking thing.
I just did today. There is just no point.
I’m not. As long as the idiot has me on mute, I’ll take advantage of it to mercilessly mock his lying ass.
Poor sarc.
"browser logged me out"
Thanks again, Pinnochio.
It sounds as true as "My little brother got on my account while I was AFK!"
"It's my friend's weed. He must've left it here"
"When the browser logged me out"
LOL!!
Sarc is such a shit liar.
The administration maintains that it has the power to revoke Khalil's green card and deport him because he helped lead pro-Palestinian protests.
I've been reading up a bit more about this case since it's a somewhat troubling one, and it turns out Khalil is a little more than just a protestor. The group he's supposedly a spokesperson for claims to be a part of several different legit no shit terrorist organizations.
At what point does free speech run up against post 9/11 anti-terrorism statutes? Well, apparently when one is a spokesperson for those terrorist organizations. One might conclude that such a spokesperson is legitimately an enemy of the people when they advocate for the destruction of the United States to replace it with a Muslim caliphate by any means necessary.
I'm not a fan of the post 9/11 security state, it's a gross violation of all kinds of rights, but at the same time those statutes appear to be designed for people exactly like Khalil. The loosely knit organizations he ostensibly represents are an actual front for several different terrorist organizations, so just calling it 'free speech' is a curious point. They called for an October 7th style attack on American soil, and while apparently no one decided to actually follow through it's still notable.
What the Trump administration should do is try him based on those offenses, but for some reason they aren't doing so. That calls into question a lot of what I wrote above since it's possible he's just a young and stupid activist, but it's also possible he's a legitimate threat given his organizations ideological basis. This is what courts are supposed to determine, but it looks like that's just out the window.
So I guess TL;DR it's possible this guys free speech rights, that being a restriction on the government specifically, are being infringed but at the same time it couldn't happen to a more disgusting and disingenuous retard. Ethically he should get his day in court, but viscerally I'm not sad he's gone.
The goal is to get rid of shitheads and save money. Why waste the effort?
"Go directly to some other country. Do not pass Go, do not collect any more taxpayer benefits."
>>due process and free speech for legal immigrants
absolutely not the happenings here.
>>A record-high share of consumers think business conditions are worsening
so why not help spread the truth, Mike Zaccardi, CFA, CMT?
>>>Scientists and public health officials "might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public" about the origins of COVID-19, writes the Princeton sociologist Zeynep Tufekci.
why are these people wasting our fucking time with 2021 news?
>>Due process matters. Yes, even for people who protest in favor of Hamas.
an example of how Khalil has been denied due process please and thankyou
Scientists and public health officials "might have withheld relevant information and even misled the public" about the origins of COVID-19, writes the Princeton sociologist Zeynep Tufekc
"might have"... jesus christ
One wonders how the narrative would change if a non-citizen permanent resident was found to be the spokesperson for the local KKK Klavern that had intimidated Black folks, burnt a few crosses, done some vandalism at Black churches, even if said spokesperson could not be shown to have actually participated in said outrages?
Pretty sure that at this point African American citizens are a lower class than non-citizen immigrants in the pecking order, so I think there wouldn't be any outrage at all.
Well, at least not from the white progressives anyway. A bunch of race grifters might be upset, but they wouldn't be given a microphone anymore if they choose to go against the narrative that immigrants are the best people ever which would put a halt to their race grifting pretty quick so I'd suppose they'd fall in line rather than risk their gravy train.
Suppose they did it to the magical rainbow alphabet people (their literal rape of children is a good thing) instead of the blacks.
You know that straight people abuse children all the time too, right? Does that make all straight people guilty of their crimes, or is guilt by association only applicable to groups you don't like.
Notably the Catholic church has done more than it's fair share of organizational coverup of abuse of minors, should I take it as read that all Christians are therefore child molesters? Or is just all Catholics are child molesters?
You know that straight people abuse children all the time too, right?
Yea, but the distorted proportions make it very clear that it's a much bigger thing in the magical rainbow alphabet people crowd.
Mathematically, let's say there's a pool of 100 people. 5 of them are magical rainbow people, 95 of them are normal. When one out of 5 of the magical rainbow people consistently rape a child, that's a lot more significant than when 1 out of 95 of the normies do so.
The issue, BYODB, is that LGBT Pedos can't help themselves. The whole lifestyle is nothing but a weirdo sex fetish in the first place. It's naturally prone to that sort of thing. The same cannot be said for straight people. Or even Christians/Catholics. The entire existence of the LGBT Pedos is one based upon building their life around their deviant sexual proclivities. That's literally the entire sum of who they are. They are NOTHING WHATSOEVER more than that. And you can easily tell this because it's how they define their entire identity.
It's why they make zero effort to even try to be normal. Gotta be special, different, unique, magical, rainbow, alphabet people. Me me me me me. Not even appreciating the fact that they're pigeonholing themselves while they do.
When you live the life of Dorian Gray, you're far more likely to go towards a hedonism that ignores basic morality and decency in search of pleasure, kink, and forbidden fruit. And it will destroy you in the end.
Assuming some angry parent doesn't destroy you first.
Yea, but the distorted proportions make it very clear that it's a much bigger thing in the magical rainbow alphabet people crowd.
Sorry, I forgot that you're an idiot and can't comprehend that there are 1.39 billion Catholics on the planet.
Also, I noticed that you sidestepped the question of guilt by association. I assume you do indeed believe that all Catholics are child molesters and just don't want to say it openly since you are a social conservative who claims to be religious and this might hit you a bit too close to home.
Sorry, I forgot that you're an idiot and can't comprehend that there are 1.39 billion Catholics on the planet.
Yea, and most of them aren't raping children. Unlike the magical rainbow alphabet people.
I assume you do indeed believe that all Catholics are child molesters and just don't want to say it openly since you are a social conservative who claims to be religious and this might hit you a bit too close to home.
Well, you know what they say about assumptions.
It's the difference between a flock of sheep that occasionally finds a wolf in sheep's clothing in its midst, and a pack of wolves. The LGBT are child predators. Period. Even if they're not physically raping children - which so many of them do - they CANNOT help themselves. They groom, they lure, they destroy. The magical rainbow people are completely and utterly depraved. They need to be in mental hospitals. They are broken human beings, and the affirmation this society has given them has only empowered them into further and further deviancy.
Zero tolerance. That's the only play at this point. Either that, or just admit that you want the grooming and eventual rape of children in the name of your rainbow pagan gods.
We're not the ones that have been conflating any opposition to pedophilia as opposition to LGBTQ.
The LGBTQ have.
President Donald Trump claims that the last-minute pardons issued by outgoing President Joe Biden are "void, vacant, and of no future force of effect." That could be the first step towards trying to prosecute some of the people who got those pardons—or it might be Trump just being crazy, hard to tell.
Biden does not have the mental capacity to have signed all those orders and bills. No one ever showed him signing them, unlike how Trump has the cameras in front of him for every signing. There's a reason for that.
Everyone with two braincells to rub together knows that Biden's team was running the whole show without his awareness of what was really happening.
I don't see why the Trump admin SHOULDNT try to invalidate every "signed" biden order that wasn't captured on camera.
At the very least, have the courts determine their legality.
"unlike how Trump has the cameras in front of him for every signing."
In front of dozens of news cameras, in a room full of people including the nation's press, with a big black marker.
He's definitely making a statement.
Khalil, a green card holder and former Columbia University grad student
And terrorist.
Don't forget terrorist.
Due process matters. Yes, even for people who protest in favor of Hamas. Yes, even for people suspected of having ties to a Venezuelan drug gang. Yes, for everyone.
Not going to disagree with that. But I am going to ask the obvious question: is that not an admission that Hamas and Venezuelan drug gangs are wrong and awful and immoral and dangerous enemies that need to be dealt with using extreme prejudice?
Can we at least get that little sliver of truth out on the table?
David French. Noted 'conservative' David French?
I'm still amazed that the NYT is paying him more than The View would.
would never believe anyone on earth could give Carville a run for his ugly money too ... not just tv ugly, ugly-ugly
Isn't Fabian Schmidt the guy that also tested positive for Influenza? Was he just being deliriously uncooperative which led to his unusually aggressive CBP interview?
Of course, thats if you even believe his family's description of his aggressive treatment.