Mahmoud Khalil

dukeman92

dukeman92

Honored Member
Messages
995
This is not remotely the worst thing. This basically presents exactly the same First Amendment concerns on a smaller scale than other policies.
 
MOUNTAINH33L said:
What crime(s) is he charged with?
Click to expand...
None. They are purporting to revoke his greencard under the INA provision that allows the Secretary of State, in his discretion, to remove any holder who poses "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The question is whether that provision can survive an "as applied" First Amendment challenge.

If they were removing him under a crime provision, they would need to wait for the conviction.
 
Paine said:
This has been the most clear cut case that fascism has arrived IMO. The statements by the Democratic “leaders” have been pathetic. They are not up to the moment at all.
Click to expand...
Attacking the law firms, the press, the independent agencies, any dissent are also clear cut cases of fascism.

The Dems aren't going to get back control by going to bat for a Hamas sympathizer. The court will free him. Once again, I have to ask: what do you want? Stronger words?
 
He and his wife, a U.S. citizen and 8 months pregnant, lived in CU housing. I believe he was taken outside the building as they were returning home.
 
Calheel said:
None. They are purporting to revoke his greencard under the INA provision that allows the Secretary of State, in his discretion, to remove any holder who poses "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The question is whether that provision can survive an "as applied" First Amendment challenge.

If they were removing him under a crime provision, they would need to wait for the conviction.
Click to expand...
It clearly cannot survive any first amendment challenge. It's viewpoint discrimination, so strict scrutiny is the standard. Absolutely no way this gets justified under that. Even if you give some discretion to the executive branch's views about foreign policy, they have nothing.

Note: it's not a discretionary determination by Rubio, either. He has to have "reasonable ground." ("the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States").

Even before you get to the constitutional issues, there's a statutory interpretation issue. Ejusdem generis would counsel that the deportability provision does not remotely apply here: the other grounds for deportation listed in that subsection are terrorism, being a Nazi during WWII, "severe violations of religious freedom," and "recruitment or use of child soldiers." It's obvious that the foreign policy consequences of Khalil do not rise to the level of "severe and adverse."

I expect him to be released in short order. Probably not as short order than I would do as the judge, but short enough. The administration has no leg to stand on.
 
superrific said:
Attacking the law firms, the press, the independent agencies, any dissent are also clear cut cases of fascism.

The Dems aren't going to get back control by going to bat for a Hamas sympathizer. The court will free him. Once again, I have to ask: what do you want? Stronger words?
Click to expand...
One of the few times where I disagree with ST...shame, bound to happen. We still have AGDevil on the thread.
 
superrific said:
Attacking the law firms, the press, the independent agencies, any dissent are also clear cut cases of fascism.

The Dems aren't going to get back control by going to bat for a Hamas sympathizer. The court will free him. Once again, I have to ask: what do you want? Stronger words?
Click to expand...
I'm shocked the Dems haven't tasked you with leading the resistance. You really know how to rally the troops.
 
McAdooSmackinYou said:
I'm shocked the Dems haven't tasked you with leading the resistance. You really know how to rally the troops.
Click to expand...
He's out of line, but he isn't wrong. Republicans got into office in part by painting Democrats as endorsing violent anti-Semitic protests on college campuses, and vociferously defending this guy in the public sphere plays into that smear campaign *and* does fuck all to address the larger concerns about this administration's authoritarian disregard for rule of law.

It's heads they win, tails we lose and I honestly give Democrats credit for not stepping into this obvious trap.
 
McAdooSmackinYou said:
I'm shocked the Dems haven't tasked you with leading the resistance. You really know how to rally the troops.
Click to expand...
Have I ever claimed to be the guy to rally the troops? I'm the guy in the back making policy and perhaps crunching data on politics. I'm not the face man.

I have been asking a genuine question, though. What do people want to see? What is a reasonable expectation of what Dems could and should be doing right now?
 
superrific said:
It clearly cannot survive any first amendment challenge. It's viewpoint discrimination, so strict scrutiny is the standard. Absolutely no way this gets justified under that. Even if you give some discretion to the executive branch's views about foreign policy, they have nothing.

Note: it's not a discretionary determination by Rubio, either. He has to have "reasonable ground." ("the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States").

Even before you get to the constitutional issues, there's a statutory interpretation issue. Ejusdem generis would counsel that the deportability provision does not remotely apply here: the other grounds for deportation listed in that subsection are terrorism, being a Nazi during WWII, "severe violations of religious freedom," and "recruitment or use of child soldiers." It's obvious that the foreign policy consequences of Khalil do not rise to the level of "severe and adverse."

I expect him to be released in short order. Probably not as short order than I would do as the judge, but short enough. The administration has no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct. But if the government appeals up to the Supreme Court I have no confidence in the result.

And of course, Trump wants this fight to play out for a long as possible because he thinks 50% of the voting population is with him on this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top