USA impacts of Israel-Hamas war

[BlooVooDoo]

This seemed like the best thread for this…

Columbia bars pro-Israel professor from campus for harassment of employees and students.

Columbia Bars Vocal Pro-Israel Professor From Campus

The university said that Shai Davidai has repeatedly harassed and intimidated employees. He said that the university has not done enough to crack down on pro-Palestinian protests.

www.nytimes.com

 

[nycfan]

“…
The order requires agency and department leaders to provide the White House with recommendations within 60 days and outlines plans for the Justice Department to investigate pro-Hamas graffiti and intimidation, including on college campuses, according to a document describing the order.

The executive order calls for the deportation of resident aliens — including students with visas — who broke laws as part of anti-Israel protestsfollowing the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel, which sparked the invasion of Gaza, the document reviewed by The Post says.

…
Trump, as a candidate, called for deporting pro-Hamas students who are in the US on visas and last week signed a different executive order that seemed to hint at steps toward that goal.

That order contained a passage that called for the US to “ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States” do not “support designated foreign terrorists,” though the intended effect of the wording was not immediately clear. …”

 

[nycfan]

Continued

“… Hate speech generally is legal in the US, but the House GOP report released last month argues that federal law bars recipients of taxpayer funds from tolerating discrimination — allowing a way to force recipients to stiffen policies.

Federal courts also have found that non-citizens have fewer free speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel that the government could refuse a visa to a Belgian Marxist — after prior court cases affirmed the deportation of anarchist and communist non-citizens. …”

Landmark? Wonder who fed that to the Post. SCOTUS acknowledged that the U.S. government did not consider the speaker (invited on a visit/trip to speak at Stanford and other Universities) a security threat and that a telephone call with the speaker was not a substitute for the students having the chance to hear the guys speak (their first amendment right to hear the ideas of the speaker), but they deferred to the government’s opposition to communism as sufficient to block the guy traveling to the United States for a week or two. Nobody actually would have cared had he been going on vacation, the issue was speaking at college campuses. But no matter. It’s one of those cases where the dissents have been more respected by legal scholars over time.