Trump judge shopped and had Khalil sent to Louisiana. The first few paragraphs.
A Louisiana immigration judge ruled Friday that activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported.
Khalil, who as a Columbia University graduate student led pro-Palestinian protests there last year, was detained last month after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had determined that Khalil's activism was antisemitic and that allowing him to remain in the country would undermine a U.S. foreign policy goal of combatting antisemitism around the world.
During a hearing at the remote Louisiana detention center where Khalil is being held, Judge Jamee Comans said she had no authority to question Rubio's determination.
After the ruling, Khalil told the judge, "I would like to quote what you said last time that there's nothing that's more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness. Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process.
"This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family," he added. "I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me are afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearing for months."
Khalil will not immediately be deported. His attorneys have said that if he were ordered deported, they would appeal the judge's ruling. Comans gave Khalil until April 23 to request a stay of his deportation if his attorneys believe he qualifies for one. And the judge said if they don't meet that deadline, she will order him deported either to Syria, where he was born, or to Algeria, where he is a citizen.
This is so stupid. Since when does US foreign policy overrule the 1st amendment? The government is literally penalizing this man over his speech.
The entire political system of the United States is founded on the assumption that it shall rule as the undisputed global hegemon. Absolutely nothing is off the table if the alternative is losing that position. It has spent the past century murdering dissidents at home and destroying countries abroad to maintain this position.
Israel is considered by the powers that be to be an indispensable pillar of this global system. An "unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East" (their words). The ability to destroy any counter-hegemonic developments in west Asia while defending the most detestable (but more importantly, loyal) monarchical regimes is worth more to them than any pretext of civil liberties or small-r republicanism, even domestically. It is the key to maintaining global military logistics, the petro-dollar system, and preventing the Chinese Belt and Road initiative from reaching Europe.
we'll see about that
Zionism supersedes the "right to free speech"
"Upholding Zionism above all" is the secret 0th amendment
You've never had the rights you think you have
Look up things like the Free Speech Fights (e.g in Spokane) or shit like judges issuing injunctions against striking miners using the word 'scab'
The well-known phrase "Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" originates from the US Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, which determined (unanimously) to uphold a conviction for distributing anti-war pamphlets during the first World War.
The irony is that the theatre (Europe) actually was on fire. Over 17 million people died.
There's two ways of looking at "rules".
What EVERYBODY can or cannot do in a particular situation. Something that explains the norms of a society, the expectations and what-not. They're supposed to apply to everybody equally (in theory).
A tool to acheive a goal. It'll be applied, worshipped, and ignored as is necessary to get to a particular end state.
Always? The us manifactured and picked its citizenry.
nat. sec. is universal backdoor for usa (dumping on courts included), and has been since invention of atomic bomb.
Since... Always lol
Since the bill of rights only applies to citizens
That is simply not true.
This is not how the law has been interpreted historically. If this were true, the detention / deportation of a Mahmoud, a permanent resident ("green card" holder, though not a citizen), would not be groundbreaking news. The empire is trying to make this so (and once it is so, they will keep pushing. Maybe dual-citizens will be next. But really, if anybody is sufficiently troublesome they will just kill them like Fred Hampton or MLK, citizenship be damned).
From an IT / bureaucracy standpoint, they are continuing to shift the line from "you can't do this" to "you can't do this to treatlerites
" which means we shift from "you're not supposed to build this oppressive surveillance panopticon" to "we will pay you billions of dollars to develop this oppressive surveillance panopticon, you just can't use it against this ever-smaller category of people yet."
I'm disappointed that someone from lemmygrad could be so easily proven completely wrong. Not that it matters, they are trying to find ways to deport naturalized citizens as well as trying to revoke birthright citizenship.
You are painfully naive and laughably wrong.
Disappointed with myself honestly, I was told BoR only applies to citizens and I never thought to double check
Solid self crit comrade, sorry for dogpiling lol, we’re all learning immigration law together
In general, "laws are just some irrelevant bullshit liberals wrote down on a piece of paper" is not a bad instinct. Law is a purely rhetorical exercise (can be useful at the right time and place though). Political economy follows its own laws.
Yeah but that’s not the terms the original comment was arguing on, they made a specific point about the constitution. Obviously no communist has faith in the rules of a bourgeoisie dictatorship, but there is a qualitative difference between the bill of rights applying to citizens or not
I agree completely.
And I agree that it’s mostly all paper bullshit. I’ve been listening to too many liberal lawyers recently
It is 100% bullshit, but it also defines how enormous amounts of state resources will be deployed (and / or justified). It is worth making a stand on those grounds.
To be fair, I read this as a descriptive claim rather than a normative one. It’s difficult to look at the current facts we’re discussing and conclude “actually, Mahmoud Khalil isn’t currently in jail and won’t be deported, because the first amendment won’t allow it regardless of citizenship”. The constitution is made up bullshit that means no more or less than the state decides it means in any given situation. Trump could drone strike this guy on American soil and there’s not a single legal mechanism that would stop him or punish him for it.
Why does it say citizens can vote but “people” can have free speech/assembly? Legally speaking, it doesn’t seem like you can violate the 3rd 4th 5th or 6th amendments just because the individual is not a citizen