Columbia Student Arrested

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Find a single post that supports that.

Most of them.  I'm pretty sure you have your own views on what peoples rights should be, despite the original intent of the Framers and/or Supreme Court rulings.

Thoughts on: Citizens United?  The 2nd amendment? etc.

Edited 9 hours ago by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Scouts Honor]

leftist terrorist sympathizers: what law did he break.

others: this one, this one and this one

LTS: um you still haven't told me what law he broke

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

leftist terrorist sympathizers: what law did he break.

others: this one, this one and this one

LTS: um you still haven't told me what law he broke

SHOW YOUR WORK!

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Khalil is a leader of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD).  He was a lead organizer and negotiator during the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. This protest disrupted campus operations to demand divestment and a Gaza ceasefire.  He was in direct talks with university administrators, making him a public face of the movement. 

CUAD members broke into the Hamilton Hall building, smashed a glass door, and barricaded it with furniture and bike locks, renaming it “Hind’s Hall” to honor a Palestinian child killed in Gaza.

CUAD members chant "From the river to the sea."  CUAD flyers with pro Hamas at rallies that Kahlil organized...

He was on TV and didn't condemn what CUAD was doing...

Don't care if he is "charged" with a crime.

He is a security risk and not welcome here.

He's a green card holder who engaged in constitutionally protected speech.

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

12 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

SHOW YOUR WORK!

Cite the statutes he broke.

You can't.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 minute ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said:

Cite the statutes he broke.

You can't.

Huh?

I asked him to show his work, I didn't accuse him of breaking any laws.

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

29 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Find a single post that supports that.

What is your interpretation of the 2nd amendment?  Why does it exist?  Should it apply to 2025?  Should I be allowed to own an AR-15?

[jross]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

Blatant violation of the first amendment.

You can believe these things, but don't ever pretend you care about the Constitution or principles of freedom or free speech. You care about the government enforcing your specific worldview on everybody else. That's all you want.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 237(a)(4)(B) does not violate the Constitution.  This is part of the United States Code that outlines the grounds for deporting green card holders.

Text of INA Section 237(a)(4)(B)

Section 237(a)(4)(B) - Terrorist Activities:
“Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of this title) is deportable.”

Cross-Reference: “Terrorist activity” is defined in INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)], including acts like providing “material support” to a terrorist organization (e.g., Hamas), which can cover funding, logistics, or even speech that aids their goals.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

7 minutes ago, jross said:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 237(a)(4)(B) does not violate the Constitution.  This is part of the United States Code that outlines the grounds for deporting green card holders.

Text of INA Section 237(a)(4)(B)

Section 237(a)(4)(B) - Terrorist Activities:
“Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of this title) is deportable.”

Cross-Reference: “Terrorist activity” is defined in INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)], including acts like providing “material support” to a terrorist organization (e.g., Hamas), which can cover funding, logistics, or even speech that aids their goals.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

The text of the First Amendment says otherwise.
 

Quote

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Tripnsweep]

20 minutes ago, jross said:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 237(a)(4)(B) does not violate the Constitution.  This is part of the United States Code that outlines the grounds for deporting green card holders.

Text of INA Section 237(a)(4)(B)

Section 237(a)(4)(B) - Terrorist Activities:
“Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of this title) is deportable.”

Cross-Reference: “Terrorist activity” is defined in INA Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)], including acts like providing “material support” to a terrorist organization (e.g., Hamas), which can cover funding, logistics, or even speech that aids their goals.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

All Palestinians are not Hamas. Just like all Americans aren't Trump supporters. 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

Blatant violation of the first amendment.

You can believe these things, but don't ever pretend you care about the Constitution or principles of freedom or free speech. You care about the government enforcing your specific worldview on everybody else. That's all you want.

You’re just now figuring this out??

[jross]

1 minute ago, Tripnsweep said:

All Palestinians are not Hamas. Just like all Americans aren't Trump supporters. 

Agreed.  However Khalil’s case isn’t about being Palestinian; it’s about DHS claiming he led CUAD protests with pro-Hamas flyers.

 

 

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

All Palestinians are not Hamas.

im not sure this has been disproven

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

39 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

im not sure this has been disproven

Also whataboutism

[Scouts Honor]

lol

[mspart]

So if any of you think the INA is unconstitutional, take it to court.   It seems pretty clear that the courts have backed both Congress and the Presidency on this.  So good luck arguing this on constitutional grounds. 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes Congress as having plenary power over immigration, giving it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals (aliens, under governing statutes and case law) may enter or remain in the United States.¹ But while Congress’s power over immigration is well established, defining its constitutional underpinnings is more difficult. The Constitution does not mention immigration, but parts of the Constitution address related subjects. The Supreme Court has sometimes relied upon Congress’s powers over naturalization (the term and conditions in which an alien becomes a U.S. citizen),² foreign commerce,³ and, to a lesser extent, upon the Executive Branch’s implied Article II foreign affairs power,⁴ as sources of federal immigration power.⁵ While these powers continue to be cited as supporting the immigration power, since the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has described the power as flowing from the Constitution’s establishment of a federal government.⁶ The United States government possesses all the powers incident to a sovereign, including unqualified authority over the Nation’s borders and the ability to determine whether foreign nationals may come within its territory.⁷ The Supreme Court has generally assigned the constitutional power to regulate immigration to Congress, with executive authority mainly derived from congressional delegations of authority.⁸

In exercising its power over immigration, Congress can make laws concerning aliens that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.⁹ The Supreme Court has interpreted that power to apply with most force to the admission and exclusion of nonresident aliens abroad seeking to enter the United States.¹⁰ The Court has further upheld laws excluding aliens from entry on the basis of ethnicity,¹¹ gender and legitimacy,¹² and political belief.¹³ It has also upheld an Executive Branch exclusion policy, premised on a broad statutory delegation of authority, that some evidence suggested was motivated by religious animus.¹⁴ But the immigration power has proven less than absolute when directed at aliens already physically present within the United States.¹⁵ Even so, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reflects that Congress retains broad power to regulate immigration and that the Court will accord substantial deference to the government’s immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

mspart

[mspart]

Mahmoud was passing out Hamas literature during the illegal activity at Columbia.   He was clearly advocating to other students to join him in this protest.   He was clearly advocating for Hamas.  These activities are such to get him expelled  from the US per the INA extract that jross provided.  

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Mahmoud was passing out Hamas literature during the illegal activity at Columbia.   He was clearly advocating to other students to join him in this protest.   He was clearly advocating for Hamas.  These activities are such to get him expelled  from the US per the INA extract that jross provided.  

mspart

But storming the Capitol to keep Trump in power is perfectly ok. 

[jross]

13 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

But storming the Capitol to keep Trump in power is perfectly ok. 

Which ones were not citizens?  Where would a USA citizen be deported to?

[mspart]

17 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

But storming the Capitol to keep Trump in power is perfectly ok. 

I believe you are conflating issues.   Those that actually stormed the Capitol and did damage to people or property were rightly prosecuted.   I do not agree they should be pardoned.   I believe most on here have said that very thing when it happened.   The majority of those that were there were pretty innocent, did not damage people or property and when asked to leave they did so. 

Your 1st Amendment hero, refused to leave, when asked, when asked again, when warned, when cajoled, during negotiations, etc.   He was defying the law and the university, a place where he had agreed to live by their standards of conduct and certainly was not.   Adding more ammo at his deportation. 

Something that has been lost here is that permits to hold demonstrations was a prerequisite to having those demonstrations.   Since 2020, only the left is able to demonstrate without a permit and get no scrutiny.   We had folks partying on I-5 here in Seattle and one got killed.   State Patrol did nothing but try to keep them safe, which they failed at apparently.   Did Mahmoud get a permit to demonstrate at Columbia?  If so, he obviously broke the agreement and INA law.   If not, which is likely, he broke the law in various ways as noted above including INA law.  

Mahmoud had a choice.   He thought he was safe from repercussions so he made a choice to demonstrate.   Bad choice for him as it turns out.  But you can't really blame him.    Everyone else since 2020 got away with mostly peaceful protests no problem.  He didn't figure in his calculations that Trump would be President and the country would no longer side with this kind of rude and destructive behavior.   

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

48 minutes ago, jross said:

Which ones were not citizens?  Where would a USA citizen be deported to?

Not sure. Maybe ask the brown skinned Natives who ICE threatened to deport. Where are they going to go? Oklahoma? 

[jross]

6 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Not sure. Maybe ask the brown skinned Natives who ICE threatened to deport. Where are they going to go? Oklahoma? 

Native Americans and Indigenous Mexicans share ancestry, so yeah, there’s resemblance, but deportation only applies to non-citizens. This has nothing to do with why non-citizens get deported.

[WrestlingRasta]

So far, the only thing we know, outside of what we are being told from that sometimes yes sometimes no trusty media, is that a federal judge, whom I think it’s fair to point out is Jewish, has some questions as to whether the governments actions….another sometimes yes sometimes no trusty segment….acted within the laws and the Constitution. He has paused deportation until he’s had a good chance to look at all of the facts in the case first hand.  (I wonder why he’s a United States judge, and we’re not). 
 

Maybe we…all…should just lift our feet up and sip our favorite beverage on this one for a minute.  I mean, smoke a joint if that’s your thing.   
 

And yes…’sometimes yes sometimes no’ refers to whether or not the topic fits our feelings.