Mahmoud Khalil is not a victim. He’s a foreign national, a guest in America, who used his time here to spew hatred, incite violence, and advocate for the destruction of the very country that gave hi
Khalil ran afoul of US immigration law, not the First Amendment, and can legally be deported solely on national security grounds - regardless of if he actually broke any laws.
However - however - the Red-Green Alliance loves a martyr, and the Trump administration is giving them one.
I sincerely hope the government can produce evidence that definitively links Khalil either to a listed terrorist group or to blatantly illegal activity, to put to rest the notion that this is a First Amendment violation.
Think about the precedent this case sets - can you imagine a future Democratic administration denying entry to an Israeli immigrant due to prior IDF service, under the same national security grounds?
The Dems are on the wrong side of every issue I can think of. Their approval rating is in the tank! They pay a lot of low IQ, low income, morally challenged dropouts to burn down cities and Tesla showrooms while berating the greatest entrepreneur of the 21st century (or maybe ever)! Anyone else sick of their games?
Is there any bizarre new low for the Left to sink to? They are all like spoiled little children who scream “NO!!!” at anything daddy says, even if that something is, “Hold still for a second while I remove this poisonous snake from your bed before he kills you.”
Let’s get one thing straight: Elon Musk is not a victim. He’s a foreign national, a guest in America, who used his time here to spew hatred, incite violence, and advocate for the destruction of the very country that gave him a visa in the first place.
So presumably you want ICE to detain him without rights too?
The guy has more lawyers than you can count, already had a hearing in court. He is not held "without rights."
As for Elon, you have two problems with your sad attempt of defending a terrorist supporter and potential criminal.
Problem 1: He never went on demonstrations or tweeted about wanting to destroy western civilization, was part of mobs chanting "death to America" or helped take over university buildings, spread propaganda from a designated terrorist organization or harassed and broke the civil rights of a minority group, because he was "protesting" against "another country."
If he had or you have evidence that he did, send it to ICE and yes I would support his deportation too.
Problem 2: He is a U.S. citizen and different laws apply. If he did those actions before his citizenship was granted, then it can be revoked and I would support that too.
"Going on demonstrations and tweeting about wanting to destroy western civilization" are the constitutionally protected rights of free assembly, and free speech. They are the fundamental principles of American democracy. They are the bedrock of American 'Freedom' If they can strip legal permanent residents if rights, and threaten their citizen spouses with detention, they can do it to you. Even if you think Trump won't do it to you, his precedent means any future government could. And yes, Elon did that before he was a citizen, he came to America on a student visa, dropped out of college and illegally set up a company and started working. His cars catch fire, explode, and kill Americans and it's only a matter of time before his exploding rockets do too.
Not only does Mahmoud's actions align with the intentions of the Founding Fathers - they overlap. What is the declaration of independence but a way of "tweeting for the overthrow of a government"? Compared to the Boston Massacre of 1770, who is Mahmoud most like, and who is trump- the protestors, or the state who opened fire to oppress the protest?
- You need to understand U.S. citizens live under different rules than non citizens. They are not granted the same free speech to call for the destruction of the country. Part of the forms visa holders have sign. A legal contract, if you break it, you are gone! Is not that hard to understand.
- The wife is not threaten to be detained. Her husband is detained and facing deportation.
As for Elon Musk... You are free not to buy his shitty products. That is what capitalism is about. You are free to sell sh.t and people are free not to buy it.
As for his immigration status:
Student Visa: When Musk first arrived in the U.S. as a student, he was allowed to work under certain conditions, but his primary purpose was studying. After leaving Stanford, Musk worked at various startups, including Zip2, under an H-1B visa, which is a legal work visa for foreign nationals in specialized fields. later obtained a green card and at the end became a citizen.
Show me the evidence that he broke the law? And again, the discussion isn't about immigration status and work permits. Is about a guest in America not allowed to call for the destruction of America and continue to live in America. Simple!
I told him a long time ago to go read the immigration laws and to find a productive life instead of throwing baby rants about how "unfair" it is for someone who took over buildings and it is accused of having associations with terrorist organizations and whishes to destroy America from getting deported from America
I only put up with them as far as learning things. They will throw American case law at you as if that adds up to logic.
It is true that the US has been very lenient and lax towards people who come to these shores with hostile intent.
The world has changed since the Bridges decision (which I think was a There are millions of people who potentially could come to the US legally and work to destroy it. Imagine allowing open supporters of ISIS to come to the US and become green card holders. Or supporters of China. That's not different from Khalil, IMO.
WRT "Bridges," Harlan Stone & Felix Frankfurter dissented.
The Supreme Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living in the are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by the same rights - and a simple reading of the constitution makes it clear that the Constitution does not expressly reserve most rights to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, but for free speech, assembly, right to remain silent etc. equality between non-nationals and citizens is the US constitutional rule.
You should read the law of immigration and the rules they are bound to. Many sections expressly state residents can lose their status for engaging in certain activities or expressing certain views, one of them is wanting to destroy the U.S.
And... Taking over buildings, destroying private property, spreading terrorist propaganda and breaking the civil rights of others is not "Free Speech"
I didn't speak of visas. A residency card is a "status" that allows you to live, work, study, etc. in the U.S.
All under the terms and conditions under the law, engaging in criminal activity and activities against the U.S. are grounds to revoke such status. And why do you ignore the fact that what he engaged in was not "Free Speech"?
You need to revisit a dictionary. "Widely documented" doesn't mean, alleged by a single media outlet (the Washington Post) and the report of such media outlet repeated by other outlets.
That is not "Widely documented"
That would be "widely reported" from a single source
""Going on demonstrations and tweeting about wanting to destroy western civilization" are the constitutionally protected rights of free assembly, and free speech."
They aren't allowed as a green card holder.
You know what - please offer your services as one of Khalil's lawyers. I would love to see that.
Would be happy to, let's see - we could start with Bridges V wixon, supreme court ruling from 1945, explicitly states that resident aliens have constitutional protection of free speech, free press etc. finding, quote "Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country. P. 326 U. S. 148" https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/
How about Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding - Supreme Court ruling from 1953 which found a lawful permanent resident is entitled to due process protections under the Fifth Amendment, meaning the government cannot deprive them of liberty without legal procedures? Quote "It is well established that, if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. "
Quote "There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
If he has the right to free assembly, and the right to protected political speech, why is he detained? Not only is there no evidence shown of links to Hamas, he's an ex British Government employee who was fully security screened to work in an Embassy
Khalil ran afoul of US immigration law, not the First Amendment, and can legally be deported solely on national security grounds - regardless of if he actually broke any laws.
However - however - the Red-Green Alliance loves a martyr, and the Trump administration is giving them one.
I sincerely hope the government can produce evidence that definitively links Khalil either to a listed terrorist group or to blatantly illegal activity, to put to rest the notion that this is a First Amendment violation.
Think about the precedent this case sets - can you imagine a future Democratic administration denying entry to an Israeli immigrant due to prior IDF service, under the same national security grounds?
https://technium.substack.com/p/no-green-card-holders-do-not-have?r=7i9h3
Send him home
In India leftist politicians have written letter of clemency for a terrorist who was given sentence to hang
Global, I just checked CUAD's instagram account & they are very noisy. What do you mean, "their accounts have gone silent."?
Go to their X account, nothing posted since he was arrested. Nothing!
Maybe X but not Instagram. That's bubbling.
I’m not on Instagram, but will check
And I’d bet a year’s pay that if we deport him to Gaza on Monday, on Tuesday he’ll be in a Hamas uniform.
The Dems are on the wrong side of every issue I can think of. Their approval rating is in the tank! They pay a lot of low IQ, low income, morally challenged dropouts to burn down cities and Tesla showrooms while berating the greatest entrepreneur of the 21st century (or maybe ever)! Anyone else sick of their games?
Is there any bizarre new low for the Left to sink to? They are all like spoiled little children who scream “NO!!!” at anything daddy says, even if that something is, “Hold still for a second while I remove this poisonous snake from your bed before he kills you.”
https://christophermessina.substack.com/p/terrorist-jew-hater-mahmoud-khalil?r=erlb4
Meltdown is an overused, hyperbolic word. It does not further useful debate.
Lol, Are You Jewish?
https://open.substack.com/pub/edwardnathanschwarz/p/israel-perpetrated-911?r=5e930t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Let’s get one thing straight: Elon Musk is not a victim. He’s a foreign national, a guest in America, who used his time here to spew hatred, incite violence, and advocate for the destruction of the very country that gave him a visa in the first place.
So presumably you want ICE to detain him without rights too?
The guy has more lawyers than you can count, already had a hearing in court. He is not held "without rights."
As for Elon, you have two problems with your sad attempt of defending a terrorist supporter and potential criminal.
Problem 1: He never went on demonstrations or tweeted about wanting to destroy western civilization, was part of mobs chanting "death to America" or helped take over university buildings, spread propaganda from a designated terrorist organization or harassed and broke the civil rights of a minority group, because he was "protesting" against "another country."
If he had or you have evidence that he did, send it to ICE and yes I would support his deportation too.
Problem 2: He is a U.S. citizen and different laws apply. If he did those actions before his citizenship was granted, then it can be revoked and I would support that too.
"Going on demonstrations and tweeting about wanting to destroy western civilization" are the constitutionally protected rights of free assembly, and free speech. They are the fundamental principles of American democracy. They are the bedrock of American 'Freedom' If they can strip legal permanent residents if rights, and threaten their citizen spouses with detention, they can do it to you. Even if you think Trump won't do it to you, his precedent means any future government could. And yes, Elon did that before he was a citizen, he came to America on a student visa, dropped out of college and illegally set up a company and started working. His cars catch fire, explode, and kill Americans and it's only a matter of time before his exploding rockets do too.
Not only does Mahmoud's actions align with the intentions of the Founding Fathers - they overlap. What is the declaration of independence but a way of "tweeting for the overthrow of a government"? Compared to the Boston Massacre of 1770, who is Mahmoud most like, and who is trump- the protestors, or the state who opened fire to oppress the protest?
- You need to understand U.S. citizens live under different rules than non citizens. They are not granted the same free speech to call for the destruction of the country. Part of the forms visa holders have sign. A legal contract, if you break it, you are gone! Is not that hard to understand.
- The wife is not threaten to be detained. Her husband is detained and facing deportation.
As for Elon Musk... You are free not to buy his shitty products. That is what capitalism is about. You are free to sell sh.t and people are free not to buy it.
As for his immigration status:
Student Visa: When Musk first arrived in the U.S. as a student, he was allowed to work under certain conditions, but his primary purpose was studying. After leaving Stanford, Musk worked at various startups, including Zip2, under an H-1B visa, which is a legal work visa for foreign nationals in specialized fields. later obtained a green card and at the end became a citizen.
Show me the evidence that he broke the law? And again, the discussion isn't about immigration status and work permits. Is about a guest in America not allowed to call for the destruction of America and continue to live in America. Simple!
Global, now "Roderick" is just pounding the table. If you want to respond to his rants, go ahead, not me.
I told him a long time ago to go read the immigration laws and to find a productive life instead of throwing baby rants about how "unfair" it is for someone who took over buildings and it is accused of having associations with terrorist organizations and whishes to destroy America from getting deported from America
I only put up with them as far as learning things. They will throw American case law at you as if that adds up to logic.
It is true that the US has been very lenient and lax towards people who come to these shores with hostile intent.
The world has changed since the Bridges decision (which I think was a There are millions of people who potentially could come to the US legally and work to destroy it. Imagine allowing open supporters of ISIS to come to the US and become green card holders. Or supporters of China. That's not different from Khalil, IMO.
WRT "Bridges," Harlan Stone & Felix Frankfurter dissented.
The Supreme Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living in the are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by the same rights - and a simple reading of the constitution makes it clear that the Constitution does not expressly reserve most rights to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, but for free speech, assembly, right to remain silent etc. equality between non-nationals and citizens is the US constitutional rule.
You should read the law of immigration and the rules they are bound to. Many sections expressly state residents can lose their status for engaging in certain activities or expressing certain views, one of them is wanting to destroy the U.S.
And... Taking over buildings, destroying private property, spreading terrorist propaganda and breaking the civil rights of others is not "Free Speech"
They are not protected by the same rights.
Here are the differences. You're just pounding the table.
https://technium.substack.com/p/no-green-card-holders-do-not-have?r=7i9h3
But they *do* have the constitutional rights to free speech, and free assembly, which is the point.
And, you seem to be making the same Mistake ICE did when they claimed his 'visa' was revoked. He didn't *have* a visa because he didn't need one.
I didn't speak of visas. A residency card is a "status" that allows you to live, work, study, etc. in the U.S.
All under the terms and conditions under the law, engaging in criminal activity and activities against the U.S. are grounds to revoke such status. And why do you ignore the fact that what he engaged in was not "Free Speech"?
As for Musk and immigration - it's well documented, reported in Guardian, wired, Washington Post many other places https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/26/elon-musk-immigration-status/
You need to revisit a dictionary. "Widely documented" doesn't mean, alleged by a single media outlet (the Washington Post) and the report of such media outlet repeated by other outlets.
That is not "Widely documented"
That would be "widely reported" from a single source
""Going on demonstrations and tweeting about wanting to destroy western civilization" are the constitutionally protected rights of free assembly, and free speech."
They aren't allowed as a green card holder.
You know what - please offer your services as one of Khalil's lawyers. I would love to see that.
Would be happy to, let's see - we could start with Bridges V wixon, supreme court ruling from 1945, explicitly states that resident aliens have constitutional protection of free speech, free press etc. finding, quote "Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country. P. 326 U. S. 148" https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/
How about Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding - Supreme Court ruling from 1953 which found a lawful permanent resident is entitled to due process protections under the Fifth Amendment, meaning the government cannot deprive them of liberty without legal procedures? Quote "It is well established that, if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/344/590/
Or Mathews Vs Diaz, Supreme court ruling in 1976
Quote "There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/67/
Oh wow. Khalil is the new George Washington.
He's not allied with any terrorist movement, so no detainment. You're free to hate his guts. I'm not a fan & I've written many things critical of him.
Khalil has all the rights in the world. Last I heard he has 17 Qatari funded lawyers.
If he has the right to free assembly, and the right to protected political speech, why is he detained? Not only is there no evidence shown of links to Hamas, he's an ex British Government employee who was fully security screened to work in an Embassy
Well that’s fascinating
And if he has the right to be innocent until proven guilty, why can't the Trump administration provide evidence and criminally charge him?
"innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal threshold. This is not a criminal proceeding.
I keep telling you that no criminal charge need be cited. No matter how many times you deny it, it's true.
"Not only is there no evidence shown of links to Hamas"
Wait for the hearing.
Now fuck off.