ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/09/ice-arrests-palestinian-activist-columbia-protests
189 comments
This is relevant if they can show that he was deemed to be supporting a terrorist organization, which of course would require him to show up in court and would require the government to defend their decision. They have done neither, and have instead moved him over 1000 miles from his lawyers without telling them
spwa4(1)
You can argue that you take a giant risk being born Palestinian and coming to US.
(he also organized and financed protests where people got attacked and hurt, including Jewish students, who got attacked and hurt - for being Jewish)
Do you have a citation for anything linking him to actual violence? Permanent residents are protected by U.S. laws, including the 1st amendment, so simply protesting shouldn’t be enough unless they can show a serious crime.
Yes (the link is that he gave interviews at the encampments where that happened), but it doesn't even matter what he actually did. If you really want to, yes, you can find videos of him defending the violence. It's not hard to find on Youtube. I don't think I could find video where he, personally, commits violence.
But it doesn't matter.
Visas can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion. You're absolutely right that visa holders are protected by US laws ... but that doesn't protect them from losing said visa.
Deportation is also at the president's discretion. So the same applies.
But they are definitely protected by US laws. You cannot kill a them. You will get arrested for stealing from them. Even if they're being deported. But the executive ("the president"), ie. ICE, can forcibly remove any visa holder, from US soil, that is perfectly within the law.
But it doesn't matter.
Visas can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion. You're absolutely right that visa holders are protected by US laws ... but that doesn't protect them from losing said visa.
Deportation is also at the president's discretion. So the same applies.
But they are definitely protected by US laws. You cannot kill a them. You will get arrested for stealing from them. Even if they're being deported. But the executive ("the president"), ie. ICE, can forcibly remove any visa holder, from US soil, that is perfectly within the law.
> Yes (the link is that he gave interviews at the encampments where that happened), but it doesn't even matter what he actually did
In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.
> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.
Can you provide a citation to that law?
In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.
> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.
Can you provide a citation to that law?
> Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity ...
I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
And, frankly, (my personal moral opinion) that is just not OK to do. If this happens, you walk away. If you don't, there may be consequences.
But if you want to shout that there is no direct proof of this person directly committing violence, well, no, there isn't. Al Capone famously also never hurt a fly (or at least, never convicted for that), in the same manner: he organized violence against people, he did not do it himself.
> Can you provide a citation to that law?
Again, this will be subtle, so if you want to shout "so you CAN'T" again, you'll probably be able to. You will not get any response beyond that. Specifically what is not addressed in my response is the conflict between Federal law and States' law. But here you go:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
TLDR: the secretary of state (and thus the president) can request that a visa be revoked, and that's that. He is not limited in that. Here is the secretary of state announcing his intention to do just that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5185620-rubio-ice-arr...
For a green card holder, apparently a (federal) immigration judge must confirm the decision.
I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
And, frankly, (my personal moral opinion) that is just not OK to do. If this happens, you walk away. If you don't, there may be consequences.
But if you want to shout that there is no direct proof of this person directly committing violence, well, no, there isn't. Al Capone famously also never hurt a fly (or at least, never convicted for that), in the same manner: he organized violence against people, he did not do it himself.
> Can you provide a citation to that law?
Again, this will be subtle, so if you want to shout "so you CAN'T" again, you'll probably be able to. You will not get any response beyond that. Specifically what is not addressed in my response is the conflict between Federal law and States' law. But here you go:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
TLDR: the secretary of state (and thus the president) can request that a visa be revoked, and that's that. He is not limited in that. Here is the secretary of state announcing his intention to do just that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5185620-rubio-ice-arr...
For a green card holder, apparently a (federal) immigration judge must confirm the decision.
> I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
Let them make case rather than contributing your credibility pro bono. That’s why we have courts, and also I feel compelled to note that the courts have tossed out tons and tons of those cases as prosecutorial overreach. Speculation without evidence isn’t going to matter in a fair court, and if we’re at the point where the courts no longer care about laws or evidence I doubt you’d want to be helping them.
If you look at past protests, there’s a pattern where the police arrest many people but ultimately only a few even face trials because even if something is unambiguously illegal like chucking a brick through a window or starting a fire, it’s hard to prove that anyone who isn’t right there approved or helped commit the crime. Going to a protest, joining a chant, waving a sign, or speaking up on behalf of the protest movement doesn’t mean you support violence unless you were specifically calling for violence. None of the links you shared showed him shouting for genocide and even the people who’ve been branding him as anti-Semitic rely on vague, sweeping claims which mostly seem to imply guilt by association. It’s always possible that a trial will show stronger evidence but I think almost all of the reaction here is that there absolutely should be a trial.
Let them make case rather than contributing your credibility pro bono. That’s why we have courts, and also I feel compelled to note that the courts have tossed out tons and tons of those cases as prosecutorial overreach. Speculation without evidence isn’t going to matter in a fair court, and if we’re at the point where the courts no longer care about laws or evidence I doubt you’d want to be helping them.
If you look at past protests, there’s a pattern where the police arrest many people but ultimately only a few even face trials because even if something is unambiguously illegal like chucking a brick through a window or starting a fire, it’s hard to prove that anyone who isn’t right there approved or helped commit the crime. Going to a protest, joining a chant, waving a sign, or speaking up on behalf of the protest movement doesn’t mean you support violence unless you were specifically calling for violence. None of the links you shared showed him shouting for genocide and even the people who’ve been branding him as anti-Semitic rely on vague, sweeping claims which mostly seem to imply guilt by association. It’s always possible that a trial will show stronger evidence but I think almost all of the reaction here is that there absolutely should be a trial.
Let's see. Last big issue is that these will be federal immigration judges ... picked by the presidency, and clearly Trump is replacing them en-masse:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/immigration-j...
3% complete.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/immigration-j...
3% complete.
If a prosecutor can make a case then let him make it, otherwise you're defending dictatorial political punishments.
I get where you're coming from, but defending this particular guy also offends me. When Trump apprehends someone for, say, protesting Tesla, I'll climb on the barricades.
But not for this asshole. Sorry.
But not for this asshole. Sorry.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide ...? ”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide ...? ”
IIRC a Jewish billionaire funded a van which drove around campuses doxxing students who had little or nothing to do with the protests. He also sent lists of those students to potential employers.
It was wrong when we deported Rosa Luxemburg for perfectly legal speech; this is wrong now.
Not only not-wrong, but morally necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemi...
Did Mahmoud Khalil actually speak out in support of Hamas?
Pro-Palestinian is the same thing as pro-Hamas according to AIPAC and the administration. So according to them, yes. According to logical peoples, no,
invalidname(1)
Yes. And he was an organizer and negotiator at the student protests where people got attacked.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/city-news/2024/04/24/i-am-...
https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/30/24145737/columbia-suspend...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68923528
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-stalemate-cont...
https://nypost.com/2024/04/26/us-news/the-extremist-student-...
And if you want to have a fight about technicalities, you're both wrong. He didn't describe himself as either pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian. He described the protests as anti-Israel ...
As anti-Israel's existence, to be exact, not anti-Israel's actions in Gaza or anywhere else.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/city-news/2024/04/24/i-am-...
https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/30/24145737/columbia-suspend...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68923528
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-stalemate-cont...
https://nypost.com/2024/04/26/us-news/the-extremist-student-...
And if you want to have a fight about technicalities, you're both wrong. He didn't describe himself as either pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian. He described the protests as anti-Israel ...
As anti-Israel's existence, to be exact, not anti-Israel's actions in Gaza or anywhere else.
> Yes.
None of the links you provided substantiate the claim that Khalil spoke out in support of Hamas. Neither that he was an organizer of the protests.
None of the links you provided substantiate the claim that Khalil spoke out in support of Hamas. Neither that he was an organizer of the protests.
That's what the last paragraph is about. You're technically right. He spoke out against Israel's right to exist. That's functionally the same, or even worse, but not exactly identical to what you mention. You pick.
In the five links you provided, there is nothing supporting that he spoke out against Israel's right to exist or that he described the protests as anti-Israel. Can you provide anything that supports your statements?
[deleted]
No idea.
> quite likely to be deported (legally)
And is that what happened?
And is that what happened?
Don't know.
So then what is the relevance of that to this situation?
There are two components to any case - what is the law, and what are the facts. Lots of people were questioning whether this is legal.
but you say yourself you don't know what the facts are. Deriding the guy as 'rather silly' is basically accepting the claims by ICE at face value and judging him accordingly. It seems like it would be smarter to gather or wait for facts before drawing a conclusion.
Re-read what I wrote, word for word.
It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they say they are somehow protected. They are not. No one was derided because it was a hypothetical
Legal cases are often considered in this fashion - assume the accusation is correct on the facts about a hypothetical person - what is the law? Else you waste a lot of time and money figuring if someone did something only to realize "ok he did that, but as it happens, that's totally fine!". Once you are certain the claim is actually problematic, then you turn to the facts - did the person in question do it?
It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they say they are somehow protected. They are not. No one was derided because it was a hypothetical
Legal cases are often considered in this fashion - assume the accusation is correct on the facts about a hypothetical person - what is the law? Else you waste a lot of time and money figuring if someone did something only to realize "ok he did that, but as it happens, that's totally fine!". Once you are certain the claim is actually problematic, then you turn to the facts - did the person in question do it?
But the law is structured so that the only thing ICE has to do is claim. They can remove visa from anyone without any reason, at their discretion.
They also have the power to remove anyone without a green card from US soil, also at their discretion.
The only thing that matters is that this person is in the US on a visa, and that ICE wants to do this. That's the law.
They also have the power to remove anyone without a green card from US soil, also at their discretion.
The only thing that matters is that this person is in the US on a visa, and that ICE wants to do this. That's the law.
If it’s true that they can most deport anyone at their discretion, why does the actual have a long list of specific reasons, most of which are felonies or other crimes which would normally carry long jail sentences?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
This is not the correct law. I think this is a law where congress is trying to force the US attorney general (and with them the states' attorneys general) to immediately rescind a visa and deport individuals in certain cases, such as the named felonies.
A lot such laws exist, because there has been a long fight between the federal government and various states about deportation (and of course, it's not just federal vs states, there's also states that want people in other states to get deported, e.g. New York vs Texas)
A lot such laws exist, because there has been a long fight between the federal government and various states about deportation (and of course, it's not just federal vs states, there's also states that want people in other states to get deported, e.g. New York vs Texas)
Can you point me to the law you believe covers this? All of the coverage I’ve read says otherwise and that includes older discussions from Trump’s first term. Everything says some kind of serious crime - felony, support for terrorism, etc. – or something like marriage fraud or other problems with his actual immigration application.
https://fox59.com/news/national-world/ap-us-news/ap-arrest-o...
https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-mahmoud-khal...
https://fox59.com/news/national-world/ap-us-news/ap-arrest-o...
https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-mahmoud-khal...
That’s specific to non-immigrant visas - students, diplomats, business travelers, etc. where the visa is time-limited and linked to a particular purpose such as being an employee of an American business or teaching at a college. The best known example on HN is the H1-B visa but there are quite a few others:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...
The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...
The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
You have pointed to the right section. They can't just deport anyone they want.
Go down to the section on terrorist activities, click the link. That's what the claim is.
Go down to the section on terrorist activities, click the link. That's what the claim is.
No,
They probably invoked very particular section of the law which gives a power to the US Secretary of State to take green card in extraordinary circumstances of danger to the states.
The provisions you keep citing most likely can’t be invoked like this, and must involve immigration courts. It’s much harder for the state to remove permanent residents than visa holders.
They probably invoked very particular section of the law which gives a power to the US Secretary of State to take green card in extraordinary circumstances of danger to the states.
The provisions you keep citing most likely can’t be invoked like this, and must involve immigration courts. It’s much harder for the state to remove permanent residents than visa holders.
The immigration courts are part of the administrative branch. Homeland overseas it, not State. He was detained by ICE, which is part of Homeland.
You are miles out of your depth.
You are miles out of your depth.
They showed up at first saying they were revoking his student visa, were surprised he didn't have a student visa and was here because he is a permanent resident, and then they made a bunch of stuff to justify hauling him away to imprison him in Louisiana.
They didn't "invoke" anything.
They didn't "invoke" anything.
[deleted]
Absolute nonsense.
Yes.
Supposedly they moved him to Louisiana after and in response to habeaus corpus being filed by his lawyers (https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lk2k...) which is, of course, incredibly alarming.
For those who aren't familiar, habeas corpus is an incredibly important civil right that effectively allows anyone who is detained to go to court to challenge the detention. Khalil's lawyers state that after they filed for habeas corpus, ICE moved Khalil to Lousiana without telling anyone. Extremely concerning.
For those who aren't familiar, habeas corpus is an incredibly important civil right that effectively allows anyone who is detained to go to court to challenge the detention. Khalil's lawyers state that after they filed for habeas corpus, ICE moved Khalil to Lousiana without telling anyone. Extremely concerning.
>Last week it was reported by Axios that Secretary of State Marco Rubio intends to revoke visas from foreign nationals who are deemed to support Hamas or other terrorist groups, using artificial intelligence (AI) to pick out individuals [on social media]
Yikes. Once the government has built that infrastructure and pipeline from monitoring to arrest, you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent?
Yikes. Once the government has built that infrastructure and pipeline from monitoring to arrest, you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent?
> you think they won't use it for other kinds of dissent?
Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? There's no freedom of speech anymore in the US if you go against the interests of Israel.
Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough? There's no freedom of speech anymore in the US if you go against the interests of Israel.
> Why, isn't using it for this kind of dissent already enough?
We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue.
We will eventually know the government is full of bunk. But that takes time. In the meantime, I think all we can do is note who is jumping to conclusions with incomplete information and who is prescient about objective facts (not forecasts).
We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue.
We will eventually know the government is full of bunk. But that takes time. In the meantime, I think all we can do is note who is jumping to conclusions with incomplete information and who is prescient about objective facts (not forecasts).
> We don’t know if he materially supported Hamas. At that point it’s no longer just a speech issue.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
> What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Very relevant in a court of law. Not really so in public opinion. I’m not saying we can conclude he deserves any of this, nor that it’s legal. I’m just saying we can’t conclude what happened was illegal without knowing the charges and evidence.
Very relevant in a court of law. Not really so in public opinion. I’m not saying we can conclude he deserves any of this, nor that it’s legal. I’m just saying we can’t conclude what happened was illegal without knowing the charges and evidence.
That infrastructure has always existed. The law 9 FAM 302.6 lays out grounds for inadmissibility.
It’s similar to the laws that prevent former Nazi regime members from immigrating to the US.
As a non-citizen, you are held to more strict standards as to your conduct. Every country does this.
It’s similar to the laws that prevent former Nazi regime members from immigrating to the US.
As a non-citizen, you are held to more strict standards as to your conduct. Every country does this.
I was a non-citizen for years and felt I should hold myself to stricter conduct standards - not just for legal reasons but also moral ones. You don't ask to come into someones house and then complain about the cooking or start giving unsolicited advice on interior decorating.
Network state in full swing.
If you are based in the US, you should protest this hard.
In Germany, they came for the communists first.
https://hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin...
In Germany, they came for the communists first.
https://hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin...
Of course they won’t /s
How we can we help him get proper legal help and awareness on a regular basis? Is HN beyond sticky threads? Seems like society in general is, but ... we need sticky threads at this point.
ADC is one organization that usually supports such cases. Here is their press release on this: https://adc.org/adc-condemns-ice-targeting-of-columbia-unive...
We could assess whether there are any big organizations separate to Hn and engaged on this issue already that could do with support, instead of needlessly duplicating their efforts.
Well I guess this is the donation for the month:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rig...
My understanding of the relevant law and legal precedent is that since revoking a green card and deporting someone is not technically a criminal penalty, it may be constitutional for the government to so. Reno vs AADC went to SCOTUS in 1999, and that was roughly the ruling, although it's unclear how much of a precedent that sets, because the lower court's ruling was rejected due to lack of jurisdiction.
Even if that is considered settled (which, personally, I find a pretty lousy interpretation of the first amendment), it would still make this arrest and detention totally illegal, at least warranting a lawsuit, even if deportation can't be avoided.
Hopefully I'm wrong. This whole thing is so destructive to the constitution, to personal liberties, and to higher education.
Even if that is considered settled (which, personally, I find a pretty lousy interpretation of the first amendment), it would still make this arrest and detention totally illegal, at least warranting a lawsuit, even if deportation can't be avoided.
Hopefully I'm wrong. This whole thing is so destructive to the constitution, to personal liberties, and to higher education.
> who claimed they were acting on a state department order to revoke his green card, according to his attorney
I thought green cards can only be revoked in rather limited circumstances. What is he accused of?
I thought green cards can only be revoked in rather limited circumstances. What is he accused of?
Since the administration specifically brought up "Department of State" as one of the entities that helped with the effort, my guess is the action is founded on this specific statue, not the "terrorist support" piece in particular, despite the latter being the widespread speculation:
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable"
This provision basically lets Secretary of State to deport any alien he deems in the future might post a threat to foreign policy. It does not appear to be a difficult standard to justify either and gives Secretary of State broad leeways in deportation of all aliens, including LPRs. That said, I am not sure it even technically constitutes "revocation" of green card. They seem to be able to simply deport you with a green card without needing the procedural burden of revocation.
All the other provisions outlined for cancelation seem to involve DHS (incl. USCIS) and Attorney General to cancels one's green card, and would not really be in purview of Dept. of State.
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable"
This provision basically lets Secretary of State to deport any alien he deems in the future might post a threat to foreign policy. It does not appear to be a difficult standard to justify either and gives Secretary of State broad leeways in deportation of all aliens, including LPRs. That said, I am not sure it even technically constitutes "revocation" of green card. They seem to be able to simply deport you with a green card without needing the procedural burden of revocation.
All the other provisions outlined for cancelation seem to involve DHS (incl. USCIS) and Attorney General to cancels one's green card, and would not really be in purview of Dept. of State.
If that is that statute Trump is deporting him over, that’s both hilarious and extremely sad at the same time.
I doubt there is any single person in US history that has been more damaging to foreign relations.
I doubt there is any single person in US history that has been more damaging to foreign relations.
> ...damaging to foreign relations
The statue talks about Foreign Policy, not foreign relations. Foreign Policy is set by the executive branch, so almost by definition he cannot be against his own foreign policy.
It could be a President's foreign policy to sever ties with some allies, for example, if it is in the benefit of the American people as he sees it.
The statue talks about Foreign Policy, not foreign relations. Foreign Policy is set by the executive branch, so almost by definition he cannot be against his own foreign policy.
It could be a President's foreign policy to sever ties with some allies, for example, if it is in the benefit of the American people as he sees it.
It says it in the title, he's Palestinian. Nevermind that it's likely illegal, we don't live in a world where that matters any more.
To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world.
Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
That's also incorrect in a certain way.
All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are.
If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws.
The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power.
With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law.
The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are.
If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws.
The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power.
With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law.
The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
The aggrieved parties are welcome to sue. But it won't get on the docket for over a year at least. but will there be any DoJ lawyers around to care then? Or support staff? Will anyone care? It's looking grim.
A well armed or something militia?
That's the constitution.
The declaration of independence[1] was America's founding document, it laid down why the British colonizing the American continent felt they had a right to overthrow their government and secede. It was likely also written to create a mandate[2]/consent for the new ruling government. The document is extremely relevant to Americans right now who have forgotten its contents and what it cost.
It is somewhat of a culmination of the Age of Enlightenment[3], which is period where philosophical thinkers largely tried to make the "golden rule"[4] rigorous. John Locke[5] was a philosopher who wrote about the idea of a "social contract"[6] which is the absolute core of liberalism and "western"[7] ideals. The social contract is a philosophical idea, but the declaration of independence was a real world implementation of it. I think the french have their own.
A well armed militia is somewhat connected to this idea in that the 2nd amendment en-codifies the right to be able to withdrawal consent to be governed[8] when a government stops protecting rights. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine for despotism. Technology however has advanced to a point where guns don't matter too much because a despotic government can prevent "free association"[9] with the use of a massive surveillance state that can detect "militias" growing before they are able to gather enough power to withdrawal consent.
Conservatism/Liberalism is a little confused in America. Liberals abandoned some of the core tenets of liberty, such as the 2nd amendment, solidarity, and making sure that those who violate the social contract experience consequences -- crime can't go unpunished and unjustices can't be allowed to fester. Liberals don't want to pay the maintenance cost of maintaining rule of law[10] because speaking truth to power[11] or meaningfully challenging those in power is dangerous. "Freedom isn't free" is a liberal idea born out of liberal philosophy despite conservatives saying it. "If none of us will die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny" is something some Americans grew up hearing from their fathers. Conservatives say a lot of liberal things, but don't understand where they come from or why they say them, creating a kind of "cargo cult"[12] Americanism where they perform American rituals without understanding the substance of those rituals. Conservatives largely aim to "conserve" christian culture, but the vast majority of Christians have almost completely abandoned the teachings of Jesus. Most of them will say things that are correct at face value, but they frequently aren't well educated enough to understand what they say, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.
I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics) [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture [8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed [9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association [10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power [12]https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
The declaration of independence[1] was America's founding document, it laid down why the British colonizing the American continent felt they had a right to overthrow their government and secede. It was likely also written to create a mandate[2]/consent for the new ruling government. The document is extremely relevant to Americans right now who have forgotten its contents and what it cost.
It is somewhat of a culmination of the Age of Enlightenment[3], which is period where philosophical thinkers largely tried to make the "golden rule"[4] rigorous. John Locke[5] was a philosopher who wrote about the idea of a "social contract"[6] which is the absolute core of liberalism and "western"[7] ideals. The social contract is a philosophical idea, but the declaration of independence was a real world implementation of it. I think the french have their own.
A well armed militia is somewhat connected to this idea in that the 2nd amendment en-codifies the right to be able to withdrawal consent to be governed[8] when a government stops protecting rights. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine for despotism. Technology however has advanced to a point where guns don't matter too much because a despotic government can prevent "free association"[9] with the use of a massive surveillance state that can detect "militias" growing before they are able to gather enough power to withdrawal consent.
Conservatism/Liberalism is a little confused in America. Liberals abandoned some of the core tenets of liberty, such as the 2nd amendment, solidarity, and making sure that those who violate the social contract experience consequences -- crime can't go unpunished and unjustices can't be allowed to fester. Liberals don't want to pay the maintenance cost of maintaining rule of law[10] because speaking truth to power[11] or meaningfully challenging those in power is dangerous. "Freedom isn't free" is a liberal idea born out of liberal philosophy despite conservatives saying it. "If none of us will die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny" is something some Americans grew up hearing from their fathers. Conservatives say a lot of liberal things, but don't understand where they come from or why they say them, creating a kind of "cargo cult"[12] Americanism where they perform American rituals without understanding the substance of those rituals. Conservatives largely aim to "conserve" christian culture, but the vast majority of Christians have almost completely abandoned the teachings of Jesus. Most of them will say things that are correct at face value, but they frequently aren't well educated enough to understand what they say, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.
I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics) [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture [8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed [9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association [10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power [12]https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
> I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.
& You did well. Thank you for comment. Forgetfulness is not a luxury we Americans can afford at this juncture.
& You did well. Thank you for comment. Forgetfulness is not a luxury we Americans can afford at this juncture.
That was… a significantly more in-depth response than I had any right to expect with my driveby comment.
> If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society
No, this is mob rule.
> who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1].
The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record...
[2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
No, this is mob rule.
> who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1].
The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record...
[2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
> No, this is mob rule.
I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible.
Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army.
You should answer a few questions:
(1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights?
(2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society?
(3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law?
(4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible.
Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army.
You should answer a few questions:
(1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights?
(2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society?
(3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law?
(4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
You’re going off piste. I’m objecting to the claim that citizens are the final arbiters of the law. That is not a view that was held by the founders because they were studied in the history of direct democracies, the early forms of which didn’t distinguish between the citizens qua legislators and citizens qua courts.
> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law.
That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law.
> That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law
That’s an uncommon reading of that line. Citizens can throw off the government. That doesn’t make them the final arbiters of the law. (Not even legal system. One point of that sentence is you don’t get to choose which parts you throw off.)
That’s an uncommon reading of that line. Citizens can throw off the government. That doesn’t make them the final arbiters of the law. (Not even legal system. One point of that sentence is you don’t get to choose which parts you throw off.)
This is a whole lot of pedantry to avoid questioning your own beliefs, which isn't surprising, because once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down, it means you have a personal responsibility to do so something if you want justice, and that's a hard reality to accept, so it's easier to live in comfortable denial.
> once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down
Justice, morals and—in my opinion—rights, yes. Even the right of the law to rule, yes. But the arbitration of the law? The particulars of its execution. No.
If the system of law is corrupted, you have to throw out the whole government. That’s why the attacks on our judiciary are so frightening. It’s really difficult to unfuck the rule of law.
Justice, morals and—in my opinion—rights, yes. Even the right of the law to rule, yes. But the arbitration of the law? The particulars of its execution. No.
If the system of law is corrupted, you have to throw out the whole government. That’s why the attacks on our judiciary are so frightening. It’s really difficult to unfuck the rule of law.
What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal.
You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now.
If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now.
If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
> You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now.
We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
> If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people
We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism.
Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding.
Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism.
Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding.
Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
While you are busy defending the status quo, people in positions of enforcement are being replaced by people who are more loyal to a man than to the law.
Once the enforcers are loyalists, it hardly matters how the courts rule.
Once the enforcers are loyalists, it hardly matters how the courts rule.
Trump being popular is insane in itself.
People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations.
The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality.
Hope is not a strategy.
The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality.
Hope is not a strategy.
This is what I was trying to say but wasn't sure how to say it. You can't deprogram people while they are drinking from the firehose and they have no incentive to disconnect. You would like family and friends, children cutting ties would be thing to force people to reevaluate but they just keep going as normal.
One thing to remember is that the right-wing media has been pushing absurd shibboleths for decades as well as normalizing treating other people horribly on slanderous grounds. That makes it really hard for people to come back because they have an all-you-can-eat buffet of crow. Repairing family relationships or friendships is never easy, and might not be possible after calling someone a “groomer”, “baby killer”, or “terrorist” and in so many cases it’s going to be incredibly uncomfortable to admit having done things like vote for Trump because of an urban legend or Facebook meme you could easily have checked.
It’s much easier to stay inside your bubble, where everyone else will agree with you that your kids and former friends just hate America, and avoid dwelling on it too much. If you’ve ever known someone who was in an extreme religion or abusive relationship, it’s pretty similar and the most reliable way to break the spell is some kind of outside shock which can’t be ignored. Trump might get that with the recession he’s working on but it’ll take time for people to accept that it’s real and was totally avoidable.
It’s much easier to stay inside your bubble, where everyone else will agree with you that your kids and former friends just hate America, and avoid dwelling on it too much. If you’ve ever known someone who was in an extreme religion or abusive relationship, it’s pretty similar and the most reliable way to break the spell is some kind of outside shock which can’t be ignored. Trump might get that with the recession he’s working on but it’ll take time for people to accept that it’s real and was totally avoidable.
I just want to say that if you (the person reading) are one of those people and want to come back , we'll still be here and we'll welcome you. You don't have to agree with us on everything (nobody ever has.) We just have to agree on a few basic principles like the value of the rule of law, the Constitution, and the fact that the people currently in charge do not respect those things.
Thank you for adding that. I completely agree with you.
> It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise?
There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise?
There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
[deleted]
Supporting a terrorist organization is legal grounds. Section 237 of the INA.
Which judge ruled on his case? I can’t seem to find it.
They didn’t. No ruling exists. This dude was just black bagged.
It's not based on legal precedent, it's right in the code. It was part of the "Immigration and Nationality Act", which most people refer to as "INA".
You still need a judge to rule that he in fact broke the law. (Specifically an immigration judge.)
Misread "his" for "this". He's only just been detained, I don't imagine a hearing has happened that fast.
Then he still has green card status.
Making statements in support of or in support of the actions of a proscribed terrorist group.
What statements did they make in support of Hamas or their actions? Forgive me for not taking that claim at face value given that literally any pro-Palestinian speech, no matter how measured, tends to get conflated with support for terrorism and/or anti-semitism. Even something as benign as wearing a keffiyeh in solidarity, which the ADLs CEO likened to wearing a swastika.
The closest to it is that the organization he represented supported resistance "by any means, including armed resistance" immediately after 7.10.23. But AFAIU they were very careful not to mention Hamas, positively or negatively.
Is being a "Palestinian activist" that?
This argument would be stronger if either of you had sources showing what he has or categorically hasn’t done.
Hard to prove “hasn’t done.”
I’ll leave it to folks saying he has done something to prove it.
I’ll leave it to folks saying he has done something to prove it.
> Hard to prove “hasn’t done.”
Even a statement is fine. The point is this argument is vacuous if both sides assume intent.
> I’ll leave it to folks saying he has done something to prove it
Sure. They do that in court filings. It just takes time. (And maybe it’s all bunk!)
Even a statement is fine. The point is this argument is vacuous if both sides assume intent.
> I’ll leave it to folks saying he has done something to prove it
Sure. They do that in court filings. It just takes time. (And maybe it’s all bunk!)
Statement what?
I think it is kinda an insidious system where it is expected we would have a statement vs any possible bad thing.
I’m all for innocent until proven guilty. If this guy mailed a check to hamas directly then fine by me, otherwise I say prove it.
I think it is kinda an insidious system where it is expected we would have a statement vs any possible bad thing.
I’m all for innocent until proven guilty. If this guy mailed a check to hamas directly then fine by me, otherwise I say prove it.
> otherwise I say prove it
Sure. But they have no obligation to provide it to you right now. Anyone concluding confidently before we have court filings is obviously grinding an axe. (And it’s happening on both sides. No group has a monopoly on hyperbole.)
Sure. But they have no obligation to provide it to you right now. Anyone concluding confidently before we have court filings is obviously grinding an axe. (And it’s happening on both sides. No group has a monopoly on hyperbole.)
>But they have no obligation to provide it to you right now.
Yes we're posting on HN, I think we all know that...
Yes we're posting on HN, I think we all know that...
And that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen?
> that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen?
If he’s organising support for a terrorist organisation or October 17th [EDIT: 7th], yes. If he’s just voicing support for Palestinian rights, it shouldn’t be.
If he’s organising support for a terrorist organisation or October 17th [EDIT: 7th], yes. If he’s just voicing support for Palestinian rights, it shouldn’t be.
[deleted]
I would hope so
Allegedly.
The government - through the Biden and Trump admins - has been testing out the limits of student repression with pro-Palestine protestors. Think of it as a pilot program for seeing what they can get away with. As we have seen elsewhere, violent shutdown of university protests is one early step on the path towards more widespread repression.
It is fine to not care, but don’t start crying for support once your cause is on the gov’s radar.
The government - through the Biden and Trump admins - has been testing out the limits of student repression with pro-Palestine protestors. Think of it as a pilot program for seeing what they can get away with. As we have seen elsewhere, violent shutdown of university protests is one early step on the path towards more widespread repression.
It is fine to not care, but don’t start crying for support once your cause is on the gov’s radar.
This isn't the UK
headline is misleading, as far as anyone can tell he's been kidnapped, not arrested. allegedly, they:
- follow him in to his home
- refuse to identify themselves
- tell him his green card has been cancelled
- tell his wife they'll kidnap her too if she intervenes
- takes him somewhere
- won't tell anyone where he is, including his (8 month pregnant) wife and lawyer
allegedly they have done this because he's been loudly critical of the policies of a foreign government, which as everyone knows, is not a crime. as everyone also knows, random feds can't just kidnap you even if they think you have committed an actual crime.
- follow him in to his home
- refuse to identify themselves
- tell him his green card has been cancelled
- tell his wife they'll kidnap her too if she intervenes
- takes him somewhere
- won't tell anyone where he is, including his (8 month pregnant) wife and lawyer
allegedly they have done this because he's been loudly critical of the policies of a foreign government, which as everyone knows, is not a crime. as everyone also knows, random feds can't just kidnap you even if they think you have committed an actual crime.
anon291(2)
I don't think they believe they can revoke his green card and deport it. If they actually can then they'll do it but what they want are the headlines and the fear.
[deleted]
reminds me of the guys who went to (and are still in) jail for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relie...
He has a green card, he is protected by the First Amendment.
It's not more complicated than that.
It's not more complicated than that.
easytiger(1)
blindriver(6)
Most green card holders will tell you they feel like a guest in the country. Getting involved in protests and supporting organizations on the terror list etc seems rather silly...