Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Feelings?

 

ADL’s threat figures included more than 150 incidents of physical assault, more than 1,840 acts of vandalism and more than 8,000 antisemitic incidents involving verbal or written harassment.

The organization noted at least 1,200 antisemitic incidents occurred on US college campuses over the past year, representing a 500% spike from the previous year’s data in the same category.

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/10/06/us/anti-jewish-threats-us-adl
 

Honestly this post deserves a neg because it's another very thinly veiled attempt at equating speech critical of the nation state of Israel with antisemitism. That's not to even begin listing off all the reasons that the ADL is a dogshit org that no serious person would ever cite as a source for anything.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Groovy.  Arrest and charge any individual who committed a crime.

Do NOT arrest and charge people with a crime for having a political position you disagree with, no matter how vehemently.  Can we have that agreement?  No, we can't?  I mean, the administration seems to be firmly in your camp, so hooray for you.

Just remember, "first they came for" is an ironclad rule of authoritarian regimes.  It goes in the "be careful what you ask for, you're going to get it good and hard" drawer.

Groovy, but specifically we are using words like peaceful protests when most people know damn well that protests were a mixed bag. Harrassment of Jews on and off campuses and a need for escorts and increased police protection were necessary in many to most instances. And even with this increased protection we saw a 150% increase in incidences year over year.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

were a mixed bag

Highlighting the important language.  "Mixed bag" means that there were 1) violent criminal acts that took place (true, not disputed) and 2) peaceful protests/statements of a position that differs from yours (also true, should not be disputed).

The existence of item 1) does not give carte blanche to treat actions under item 2) as crimes.  Agreed?

Because if you do agree....then you should be troubled by the administration's rhetoric and approach.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Groovy, but specifically we are using words like peaceful protests when most people know damn well that protests were a mixed bag. Harrassment of Jews on and off campuses and a need for escorts and increased police protection were necessary in many to most instances. And even with this increased protection we saw a 150% increase in incidences year over year.

Literally every protest ever of any substantial size is a mixed bag. There are always going to be people that either press things too far or use the premise of the protest as cover to push an agenda that's actually nefarious in nature. The infamous Charlottesville Unite the Right rally is perhaps the greatest example of this where there were many, many peaceful protestors/demonstrators on both sides, but there were also quite a few groups that used the premise of the rally as an excuse to intimidate others, inflict violence on others, or otherwise engage in activities that most of the people in attendance would find abhorrent (such as the tiki torch mob that was marching and chanting "Jews will not replace us!" etc).

What Brisket is trying to say to you is that we cannot be lulled into a state where we begin to accept the US government imprisoning, black bagging, and/or deporting people who are not engaging in illegal activities simply because they are engaging in speech that our elected representatives do not like.

Once we begin to accept that, we are lost as a society, period. Civil disobedience has been one of the (if not THE) greatest tools available to affect positive change on our society from a civil rights perspective, and people like you are [seemingly] unwittingly cheering on the government's attempts to destroy that tool with finality. It's very dismaying to see.

Again, no one disagrees with you that antisemitism is a problem, and no one disagrees that antisemitism increased (worldwide, not just on college campuses) after the events of October 7th, it was inevitable, and it fucking sucks. People suck. Our highest levels of government are now infested with actual antisemitic pieces of shit. A White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security advisor is an out and about actual unapologetic neo-Nazi. These people do not give the slightest shit about Jewish people beyond using them and the state of Israel as a tool to ultimately silence and/or punish all speech critical of their actions.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

These people do not give the slightest shit about Jewish people beyond using them and the state of Israel as a tool to ultimately silence and/or punish all speech critical of their actions.

Also, that the "pro-Israel" crowd doesn't see this as plain as day is baffling to me.  You are being USED.  That's it.  You are a tool of the autocracy -- you think that you are using them, but you have it bassackwards.

Posted
9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, that the "pro-Israel" crowd doesn't see this as plain as day is baffling to me.  You are being USED.  That's it.  You are a tool of the autocracy -- you think that you are using them, but you have it bassackwards.

Lol. I’m not being used. Other pro Israel posters here aren’t being used. 

Posted

I oppose pretty much everything the guy has done. Just because he exhibited common sense here doesn’t mean he’ll do it again. So the notion that I’m being “used” is rather amusing to me. 

Again, this has nothing to do with Trump for me. I know for so many on here, it’s 100% about Trump, because everything is. 

Posted

I guess I look at this too simplistically. As a visa, or green card holder, you are a guest in this country. As long as you remain a pleasant guest, and abide by immigration  rules and regulations, America will remain a gracious host. Laxtonto is wise to tell the international students, he works with to stay out of protests. As a US citizen, I can shit in my own floor, as I have to clean it up. As a guest, you simply do not have that right. Especially, if, as a guest you are harassing US citizens. It is a very entitled stance that has enveloped some of our elite universities. My threshold is do what you want, but when property is destroyed, or US citizens get harassed, you have crossed that line, and all bets are off. Someone was bound to be made an example of, and unfortunately for this dude, he is it.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

Hey, guys, what's a little tacit fascism between friends? I mean, if we can't equate opposition to a foreign government's actions to anti-semitism and supporting terrorism, we're not going to get where some want us to go. So, let's go ahead and start rounding up and deporting legal residents to demonstrate we're serious about "you'd better watch what you say, or else." Free speech, free shmeech.

It's funny; I was listening to an interview with the deputy secretary of the DHS on NPR about an hour or so ago, and he couldn't answer a couple of very simple, basic questions:

  1. What specifically did this guy do to support terrorism or antisemitism?
  2. What specific law did this guy break?

Every attempt to respond was, "Like I said, didn't you see the protests on the teevee?" as if it were self-evident that ANY protest against Israeli actions OBVIOUSLY represents anti-semitism and support for Hamas's terrorism. It's kind of funny because we heard that exact same bullshit from a lot of simpletons on these boards.

Anyone here is welcome to listen to it themselves: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5326015/dhs-deputy-secretary-troy-edgar-discusses-arrest-of-protest-leader-deportations

Personally, I don't know if this guy was involved in any behavior that would actually constitute harassment or the destruction of property. He claims to have been primarily a spokesperson and/or mediator between the protestors and the university. Until now, the government hasn't provided any evidence to the public that he did. Just vague statements of anti-semitism and support for terrorism.

I hope we all realize everyone in the United States is protected by the US Constitution, including green card holders, visa holders, and undocumented immigrants. This guy, under our laws, is protected under the First Amendment and is afforded the right to Due Process. Shit, the guy is also married to a US citizen and is a legal permanent resident.

*****

A little background here:
In 2019, it was decreed (Executive Order 13899) that Jewish people (including American citizens who'd never been to Israel in their entire lives) were not only an ethnoreligious group but also a nationality which, in turn, "legitimizes" the assertion that criticizing Israeli State actions are essentially an example of antisemitism, because you see, the authoritarian mindset doesn't really tolerate nuance very well. 

(To illustrate the absurdity of that take, let's consider any number of Old World countries comprised primarily of a single or dominant ethnic group. Hell, Europe is lousy with them. So, let's say I've got a problem with some bullshit Bosnia is up to, like being dicks to Serbians, and I go down to campus and say, "Hey, Bosnia, stop acting like an asshole." Does that make me necessarily Islamophobic and wish to see the destruction of Bosnia and the Bosnian people? Well, no, of fucking course not. I just don't like what the Bosnian government is doing, and in fact, I believe that its actions actually further imperil peace in the Balkans.)

Turns out, though, that little EO expanding the legal definition of Judaism in America to a "nationality" wasn't universally supported by the Jewish community because many actual anti-semites and neo-Nazis think the same way: Jews aren't Americans. By nature, they're an Other, separate from America.

*****

Ask yourself this: Do I actually believe in the US Constitution and the rule of law? Or is it all just bullshit unless I change my mind only for when it's convenient?

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

I guess I look at this too simplistically. As a visa, or green card holder, you are a guest in this country. As long as you remain a pleasant guest, and abide by immigration  rules and regulations, America will remain a gracious host. Laxtonto is wise to tell the international students, he works with to stay out of protests. As a US citizen, I can shit in my own floor, as I have to clean it up. As a guest, you simply do not have that right. Especially, if, as a guest you are harassing US citizens. It is a very entitled stance that has enveloped some of our elite universities. My threshold is do what you want, but when property is destroyed, or US citizens get harassed, you have crossed that line, and all bets are off. Someone was bound to be made an example of, and unfortunately for this dude, he is it.

CHIEF

Again, someone needs to point to the laws of this country that have been violated. The Bill of Rights applies to every person on American soil. Simply using speech that runs contrary to the acting administration's message is not anywhere close to being an adequate or legal reason to black bag/arrest and deport someone. Not remotely close.

No evidence has been presented that this person is a member of or offers material (or even verbal) support for any terrorist organization. He has not been charged or even accused of a crime.

The administration's angle is that his speech presents a national security risk, which is ridiculous, and no red-blooded American should ever accept that premise on its face. It runs completely contrary to what we claim are our most important values as a country.

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

I guess I look at this too simplistically. As a visa, or green card holder, you are a guest in this country. As long as you remain a pleasant guest, and abide by immigration  rules and regulations, America will remain a gracious host. Laxtonto is wise to tell the international students, he works with to stay out of protests. As a US citizen, I can shit in my own floor, as I have to clean it up. As a guest, you simply do not have that right. Especially, if, as a guest you are harassing US citizens. It is a very entitled stance that has enveloped some of our elite universities. My threshold is do what you want, but when property is destroyed, or US citizens get harassed, you have crossed that line, and all bets are off. Someone was bound to be made an example of, and unfortunately for this dude, he is it.

CHIEF

I agree with what you've said, but the issue is no one's provided evidence he was involved in the destruction of property or harassing students.  No one's even said that much.  The only charge levied against him in the media is he helped organize the protest, but what does that mean?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

I agree with what you've said, but the issue is no one's provided evidence he was involved in the destruction of property or harassing students.  No one's even said that much.  The only charge levied against him in the media is he helped organize the protest, but what does that mean?

I don’t know what it means, and I most certainly do not care. The “issue” for most non-fantana types is the Trump admin did this. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t know what it means, and I most certainly do not care. The “issue” for most non-fantana types is the Trump admin did this. 

That's not my issue.  And you should care. You might not be affected this time or the next time but discriminatory enforcement of pseudo law is an abuse that leads down a dark road.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I hope we all realize everyone in the United States is protected by the US Constitution, including green card holders, visa holders, and undocumented immigrants. This guy, under our laws, is protected under the First Amendment and is afforded the right to Due Process. Shit, the guy is also married to a US citizen and is a legal permanent resident.

 

But are they though? I don't know. I am not versed in Immigration law, rules, and regulations. Laxtonto seems to be an expert in this field simply due to his work environment. I would think that his status as a legal permanent resident would help. As a US citizen I can proudly support Hamas in my own country, according to Laxtonto's post, on the last page, a green card holder can, but he better keep his opinion to him or herself.

CHIEF

Posted
1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

That's not my issue.  And you should care. You might not be affected this time or the next time but discriminatory enforcement of pseudo law is an abuse that leads down a dark road.

I don’t care. And suspect that 75% of Americans feel the same. Maybe more. I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I care about or even know will ever be affected by such future enforcements. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

But are they though? I don't know. I am not versed in Immigration law, rules, and regulations. Laxtonto seems to be an expert in this field simply due to his work environment. I would think that his status as a legal permanent resident would help. As a US citizen I can proudly support Hamas in my own country, according to Laxtonto's post, on the last page, a green card holder can, but he better keep his opinion to him or herself.

CHIEF

Laxtonto wasn't talking about rights, simply risks. I'm not saying it was "smart," but he was absolutely exercising his supposedly guaranteed constitutional rights unless, of course, he engaged in illegal activity. Hell, engaging in any act of protest is inherently risky for all kinds of reasons. One thing you shouldn't fear, however, is a government capriciously deporting your Free Speech just because they disagree with it.

When I was living on a student visa in France country, it would've never occurred to me that had I peacefully protested against, say, the US invasion of Panama (which did occur while I was living over there), I could have been imprisoned without charges and eventually deported. Shit, protesting is the national fucking past-time over there.

For the record, I didn't protest it, but I also initially had a really hard time explaining/justifying/understanding it at the moment it happened. And, really, I don't even recall if there were protests over that, though I'm sure someone was somewhere.

Essentially, what you're saying, however, is that LEGAL residents of the US should be afraid of the federal government because we just might decide to suddenly act like an autocracy. And, apparently, several posters are again admitting to their tacit fascism.

What laws did this guy break?

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident 

image.thumb.png.82ca9b11e6184d8f4fcb99efdb191bc7.png

  • Like 1
Posted
20 hours ago, Bevo said:

Groovy, but specifically we are using words like peaceful protests when most people know damn well that protests were a mixed bag. Harrassment of Jews on and off campuses and a need for escorts and increased police protection were necessary in many to most instances. And even with this increased protection we saw a 150% increase in incidences year over year.

This is just a lie.

Posted
45 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t know what it means, and I most certainly do not care. The “issue” for most non-fantana types is the Trump admin did this. 

The law protects everybody or the law protects nobody. Pick one.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The law protects everybody or the law protects nobody. Pick one.

Small government people wanting to make us afraid of our own government.

Posted
11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Laxtonto wasn't talking about rights, simply risks. I'm not saying it was "smart," but he was absolutely exercising his supposedly guaranteed constitutional rights unless, of course, he engaged in illegal activity. Hell, engaging in any act of protest is inherently risky for all kinds of reasons. One thing you shouldn't fear, however, is a government capriciously deporting your Free Speech just because they disagree with it.

When I was living on a student visa in France country, it would've never occurred to me that had I peacefully protested against, say, the US invasion of Panama (which did occur while I was living over there), I could have been imprisoned without charges and eventually deported. Shit, protesting is the national fucking past-time over there.

For the record, I didn't protest it, but I also initially had a really hard time explaining/justifying/understanding it at the moment it happened. And, really, I don't even recall if there were protests over that, though I'm sure someone was somewhere.

Essentially, what you're saying, however, is that LEGAL residents of the US should be afraid of the federal government because we just might decide to suddenly act like an autocracy. And, apparently, several posters are again admitting to their tacit fascism.

What laws did this guy break?

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident 

image.thumb.png.82ca9b11e6184d8f4fcb99efdb191bc7.png

It says that a Permanent Resident must "obey all laws of the US and localities." Does that include lawful orders? Like to disperse from the college premises? We know that order was given multiple times, and ignored. Normal shit that would get a US citizen possibly arrested, but gives grounds to deport a non-US citizen.

Permanent Residence does not guarantee the same rights as a US citizen. It says right in your post that they cannot vote in federal, state, and local elections.

CHIEF

Posted
1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

I guess I look at this too simplistically. As a visa, or green card holder, you are a guest in this country. As long as you remain a pleasant guest, and abide by immigration  rules and regulations, America will remain a gracious host. Laxtonto is wise to tell the international students, he works with to stay out of protests. As a US citizen, I can shit in my own floor, as I have to clean it up. As a guest, you simply do not have that right. Especially, if, as a guest you are harassing US citizens. It is a very entitled stance that has enveloped some of our elite universities. My threshold is do what you want, but when property is destroyed, or US citizens get harassed, you have crossed that line, and all bets are off. Someone was bound to be made an example of, and unfortunately for this dude, he is it.

CHIEF

BUT....

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

I agree with what you've said, but the issue is no one's provided evidence he was involved in the destruction of property or harassing students.  No one's even said that much.  The only charge levied against him in the media is he helped organize the protest, but what does that mean?

^^^^ This.

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t care. And suspect that 75% of Americans feel the same. Maybe more. I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I care about or even know will ever be affected by such future enforcements. 

...he posts as the administration has already suggested that protests against the activities of an admin insider and one of its biggest supporters will be deemed "terrorism."

The relentless response of "nothing is wrong until the final, irrevocable action of the authoritarian regime happens....by which time it is much, much, MUCH too late to do anything about it" is consistent.

We suggest over and over that we really ought to put out that fire that's burning before the winds get much stronger, and the relentless and unwavering response is "it's not that windy right now, and Pacific Palisades has been around forever -- it's not going to burn."  It's so maddening to watch this unfolding before our eyes, when we all know how it goes.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

It says that a Permanent Resident must "obey all laws of the US and localities." Does that include lawful orders? Like to disperse from the college premises? We know that order was given multiple times, and ignored. Normal shit that would get a US citizen possibly arrested, but gives grounds to deport a non-US citizen.

Permanent Residence does not guarantee the same rights as a US citizen. It says right in your post that they cannot vote in federal, state, and local elections.

CHIEF

Where in the fuck did I suggest a non-citizen has the right to vote?

Where in any of the articles regarding the protests does it say that this particular guy didn't follow lawful orders? To date, the current regime has not claimed he broke any laws whatsoever -- aside from exercising his rights to oppose the actions of a foreign government.

If you or anyone else shows that Khalil, the guy in detention who has not been allowed to see a lawyer, broke an actual law or refused lawful orders, then okay. But I'm not going to be silent over the detention of a legal US resident because Big Brother didn't like what he had to say.

If you are okay with the detention of a legal US resident because you didn't like his speech, then quite frankly, you are an authoritarian. And, if that's the case, then as an American who believes in the US Constitution, you are my sworn enemy. I'm quite serious about that.

Posted
2 hours ago, CHIEF said:

I guess I look at this too simplistically. As a visa, or green card holder, you are a guest in this country. As long as you remain a pleasant guest, and abide by immigration  rules and regulations, America will remain a gracious host. Laxtonto is wise to tell the international students, he works with to stay out of protests. As a US citizen, I can shit in my own floor, as I have to clean it up. As a guest, you simply do not have that right. Especially, if, as a guest you are harassing US citizens. It is a very entitled stance that has enveloped some of our elite universities. My threshold is do what you want, but when property is destroyed, or US citizens get harassed, you have crossed that line, and all bets are off. Someone was bound to be made an example of, and unfortunately for this dude, he is it.

CHIEF

All this. SOP in most countries. I have Mexican residency, but if I got picked up by policia at a political protest, they'd cancel my residency and toss me in the Rio Grande.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

BUT....

^^^^ This.

...he posts as the administration has already suggested that protests against the activities of an admin insider and one of its biggest supporters will be deemed "terrorism."

The relentless response of "nothing is wrong until the final, irrevocable action of the authoritarian regime happens....by which time it is much, much, MUCH too late to do anything about it" is consistent.

We suggest over and over that we really ought to put out that fire that's burning before the winds get much stronger, and the relentless and unwavering response is "it's not that windy right now, and Pacific Palisades has been around forever -- it's not going to burn."  It's so maddening to watch this unfolding before our eyes, when we all know how it goes.

I won’t protest and nobody I know will. You truly think he’ll do something that’ll make most or all of us behave in a manner that’ll put us in harm’s way. I cannot even have a rational conversation with people who think this way, because that simply wont happen with me or anyone I know or the majority of this board. And, he’s done things that have already directly affected my personal finances. 

I can’t believe he got reelected in the first place, I acted in a manner directly to prevent that, and the time to “protest” is in ‘26 and ‘28. At this rate, there’s bound to be major retribution, and I would hope that some of the backlash against the left stays in place, and we govern from a centrist fiscally responsible standpoint. But, that the nonsense and destruction on our college campuses brought forth by idiot professional protestors absolutely stops. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I won’t protest and nobody I know will. You truly think he’ll do something that’ll make most or all of us behave in a manner that’ll put us in harm’s way. I cannot even have a rational conversation with people who think this way, because that simply wont happen with me or anyone I know or the majority of this board. And, he’s done things that have already directly affected my personal finances. 

I can’t believe he got reelected in the first place, I acted in a manner directly to prevent that, and the time to “protest” is in ‘26 and ‘28. At this rate, there’s bound to be major retribution, and I would hope that some of the backlash against the left stays in place, and we govern from a centrist fiscally responsible standpoint. But, that the nonsense and destruction on our college campuses brought forth by idiot professional protestors absolutely stops. 

I love the idea that authoritarianism regimes stop when the people they are shitting on tell them to stop.  Sure.  There's a first time for everything, I guess.  

And by the way, "protest" has already been defined by this admin as refusing to purchase a product (see the statements from the regime pronouncing the decision not to buy a Tesla as an "illegal and collusive boycott").  Fail to buy regime-approved products?  Instead buying products from companies disfavored by the regime?  

That y'all think that authoritarians will just go a bit far, and then stop.....well, that's a take.  One not based on any historical precedent, but sure.  If thinking that way brings you comfort, have at it.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking it's based in reality.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, rage-a-holic said:

All this. SOP in most countries. I have Mexican residency, but if I got picked up by policia at a political protest, they'd cancel my residency and toss me in the Rio Grande.

This guy wasn't picked up by the police at a political protest. Also, the US is not Mexico.

Is Free Speech a guaranteed right in Mexico? Is that right extended in their Constitution to legal permanent residents?

If the answer to those two questions is yes, are you suggesting the US should emulate Mexico and ignore its own Constitution?

11 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

Yes, if he broke the law, he should be punished. What law did he break?

The current regime hasn't charged him with any crimes. They've only vaguely suggested, as of this moment, that he's an anti-semite who supports Hamas and terrorism. Let's see the charges. 

Again, a legal, permanent US resident who's married to a US citizen is locked up, right now, barred from seeing an attorney, and is being threatened with deportation to Palestine, which is under the occupation of the government that he was protesting against.

How is that going to work out for him?

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I love the idea that authoritarianism regimes stop when the people they are shitting on tell them to stop.  Sure.  There's a first time for everything, I guess.  

And by the way, "protest" has already been defined by this admin as refusing to purchase a product (see the statements from the regime pronouncing the decision not to buy a Tesla as an "illegal and collusive boycott").  Fail to buy regime-approved products?  Instead buying products from companies disfavored by the regime?  

That y'all think that authoritarians will just go a bit far, and then stop.....well, that's a take.  One not based on any historical precedent, but sure.  If thinking that way brings you comfort, have at it.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking it's based in reality.

I don’t understand your first paragraph.  On your second, so failure to buy Teslas will be viewed as domestic terrorism - is this your take?  Also I don’t understand your third paragraph. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This guy wasn't picked up by the police at a political protest. Also, the US is not Mexico.

Is Free Speech a guaranteed right in Mexico? Is that right extended in their Constitution to legal permanent residents?

If the answer to those two questions is yes, are you suggesting the US should emulate Mexico and ignore its own Constitution?

Yes, if he broke the law, he should be punished. What law did he break?

The current regime hasn't charged him with any crimes. They've only vaguely suggested, as of this moment, that he's an anti-semite who supports Hamas and terrorism. Let's see the charges. 

Again, a legal, permanent US resident who's married to a US citizen is locked up, right now, barred from seeing an attorney, and is being threatened with deportation to Palestine, which is under the occupation of the government that he was protesting against.

How is that going to work out for him?

Here’s something to consider. Why don’t we wait to hear what law the guy broke before assaulting the decision to detain him?  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Here’s something to consider. Why don’t we wait to hear what law the guy broke before assaulting the decision to detain him?  

Because they've already said they didn't detain him for violating any laws.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Here’s something to consider. Why don’t we wait to hear what law the guy broke before assaulting the decision to detain him?  

Your insistence that such an offense exists when it's been confirmed that there was no crime or wrongdoing, or even breaking Columbia's private code of conduct, is just ridiculous. This legal resident is being deported for having unpopular speech, in a nation that specifically protects freedom of speech from government reprisals. For EVERYONE - not just citizens. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

“It is utterly despicable that they are carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety,” Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for IfNotNow, a Jewish group that is often critical of Israel, said of the Trump administration.

Sophie Ellman-Golan, the director of strategic communications for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, added, “Jews, regardless of where they stand on political activism and organizing, feel in their bones how deeply dangerous this is.”

That sentiment was echoed during a news conference near Columbia on Monday evening by several Jewish professors and activists who accused the Trump administration of using genuine antisemitism as a pretext to further its goals of deportation and limiting free speech.

“What’s happening on this campus — or to this campus — is not about protecting Jews,” said Marianne Hirsch, a retired English professor and Holocaust scholar whose parents were Holocaust survivors. “Pro-Palestinian speech and activism does not mean a lack of safety for Jews,” she added.

Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia who has supported the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, said in an interview that Mr. Khalil, whom he knows, is “dedicated to negotiation, mediation and finding peaceful agreements to conflicts.”

Professor Howley also noted that Mr. Khalil did not obscure his identity. Opponents of the protests, including the A.D.L., have blamed some protesters for wearing masks to hide their faces. Several faculty members even proposed a universitywide ban on face coverings at classes and other events.

But Mr. Khalil’s is a familiar face to critics and supporters alike. Over the past week, Mr. Khalil has been singled out on social media by critics of the protests.

The dispute among Jewish organizations represents more than just the general polarization of American life. Mr. Khalil’s case highlights fundamental tensions in the American Jewish community’s sense of how best to ensure its own security.

The American Jewish establishment has long defended civil liberties and the rule of law, seeing them as crucial bulwarks against the kinds of threats that many Jews fled Europe and elsewhere to escape. But American Jews are also vigilant against antisemitism, and for many people, supporting Israel has long been central and viewed as part of that vigilance.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City, said that defending Jews from supporters of Hamas — designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government, he noted — is of paramount concern.

At the same time, he argued for protecting civil liberties. “What I believe,” he said, “is what the mainstream of the American Jewish community believes. We have always been at the vanguard of free speech.”

Jonathan Jacoby, the national director of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group, expressed concern that the arrest and promised crackdown would widen divides between Jews and other minority groups.

“There has never been a safer and more flourishing experience than the American Jewish experience, living as a free people in an open society,” he said. “Anything that endangers that, or our relationships with other Americans — those are all Jewish concerns.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/nyregion/palestinian-activist-arrest-jewish-community.html

  • Like 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Where in the fuck did I suggest a non-citizen has the right to vote?

Where in any of the articles regarding the protests does it say that this particular guy didn't follow lawful orders? To date, the current regime has not claimed he broke any laws whatsoever -- aside from exercising his rights to oppose the actions of a foreign government.

If you or anyone else shows that Khalil, the guy in detention who has not been allowed to see a lawyer, broke an actual law or refused lawful orders, then okay. But I'm not going to be silent over the detention of a legal US resident because Big Brother didn't like what he had to say.

If you are okay with the detention of a legal US resident because you didn't like his speech, then quite frankly, you are an authoritarian. And, if that's the case, then as an American who believes in the US Constitution, you are my sworn enemy. I'm quite serious about that.

I was just refuting the claim that legal residents have the same rights as a full-blown US-citizen. I think it is obviously not the case.

CHIEF

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, CHIEF said:

I was just refuting the claim that legal residents have the same rights as a full-blown US-citizen. I think it is obviously not the case.

CHIEF

No such claim was made.

Edit: Oh, and @CHIEF, are you okay with the detention and threatened deportation of a legal, permanent US resident, who's married to an American citizen and against whom no criminal charges have been filed, simply because the current regime doesn't approve of his speech?

Yes or no. Simple question.

Edited by bolverk
Posted
48 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

What laws did he violate? The government isn't even pretending he broke the law.

Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

“It is utterly despicable that they are carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety,” Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for IfNotNow, a Jewish group that is often critical of Israel, said of the Trump administration.

Sophie Ellman-Golan, the director of strategic communications for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, added, “Jews, regardless of where they stand on political activism and organizing, feel in their bones how deeply dangerous this is.”

That sentiment was echoed during a news conference near Columbia on Monday evening by several Jewish professors and activists who accused the Trump administration of using genuine antisemitism as a pretext to further its goals of deportation and limiting free speech.

“What’s happening on this campus — or to this campus — is not about protecting Jews,” said Marianne Hirsch, a retired English professor and Holocaust scholar whose parents were Holocaust survivors. “Pro-Palestinian speech and activism does not mean a lack of safety for Jews,” she added.

Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia who has supported the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, said in an interview that Mr. Khalil, whom he knows, is “dedicated to negotiation, mediation and finding peaceful agreements to conflicts.”

Professor Howley also noted that Mr. Khalil did not obscure his identity. Opponents of the protests, including the A.D.L., have blamed some protesters for wearing masks to hide their faces. Several faculty members even proposed a universitywide ban on face coverings at classes and other events.

But Mr. Khalil’s is a familiar face to critics and supporters alike. Over the past week, Mr. Khalil has been singled out on social media by critics of the protests.

The dispute among Jewish organizations represents more than just the general polarization of American life. Mr. Khalil’s case highlights fundamental tensions in the American Jewish community’s sense of how best to ensure its own security.

The American Jewish establishment has long defended civil liberties and the rule of law, seeing them as crucial bulwarks against the kinds of threats that many Jews fled Europe and elsewhere to escape. But American Jews are also vigilant against antisemitism, and for many people, supporting Israel has long been central and viewed as part of that vigilance.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City, said that defending Jews from supporters of Hamas — designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government, he noted — is of paramount concern.

At the same time, he argued for protecting civil liberties. “What I believe,” he said, “is what the mainstream of the American Jewish community believes. We have always been at the vanguard of free speech.”

Jonathan Jacoby, the national director of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group, expressed concern that the arrest and promised crackdown would widen divides between Jews and other minority groups.

“There has never been a safer and more flourishing experience than the American Jewish experience, living as a free people in an open society,” he said. “Anything that endangers that, or our relationships with other Americans — those are all Jewish concerns.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/nyregion/palestinian-activist-arrest-jewish-community.html

Watch, every single one of the progressive anti-Zionist Jewish organizations will eventually be labeled terrorist organizations. The ADL is pushing for this.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

No such claim was made.

Edit: Oh, and @CHIEF, are you okay with the detention and threatened deportation of a legal, permanent US resident, who's married to an American citizen and against whom no criminal charges have been filed, simply because the current regime doesn't approve of his speech?

Yes or no. Simple question.

No.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Watch, every single one of the progressive anti-Zionist Jewish organizations will eventually be labeled terrorist organizations. The ADL is pushing for this.

It wouldn't surprise me.

As I said above, there's a deeper reason why many Jewish groups opposed the relabelling of Judaism as a nationality versus an ethnoreligious group. Criticism of a foreign state can be more easily twisted into supposed anti-semitism and, therefore, be considered in alignment with terrorist organizations that actually do want the destruction of Israel.

The redefinition also can be leaned on to make American Jews as something other than "American" and, therefore, more vulnerable to various "punishments" meted out by the regime. 

Posted

To bring the discussion back into the realm of the informational, I thought I’d offer a bit on the process and rights people have with regards to visas and deportation. 
 

Visa Applications Overseas: Applicants for most classes of visa overseas, especially non-immigrant visas, have almost no appeal rights.  In fact, for most cases, they are assumed to be intending illegal immigrants until they prove otherwise to a consular officer.  Under a provision of immigration law, a consular officer can also refuse a visa if it is suspected the person intends to use the visa in a “manner inconsistent with its purpose.” This basically means that a person can be denied because the officer doesn’t like the cut of his jib, and officers are encouraged to deploy this provision when an applicant gives them the ick or bad vibes.

This is basically a superpower.  Courts have established that consular officer decisions overseas are not subject to appeal or judicial review.  Admin law judges are also endowed with this narrow superpower for their decisions. 
 

Visa Revocations: If a person is outside the US, a visa can be revoked at any time by the State Department with no review or appeal.  However, there almost always needs to be a specific reason, simply “cause you’re sus” won’t work.  Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DHS can revoke visas inside the United States for “good and sufficient cause” with no review or appeal. 
 

Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card):  Now you have significant rights.  A green card holder can have his status revoked but only for specific cause.  Usually, this is fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal activity.  Support for terrorism is also a reason. A revocation must be approved by an immigration judge.  It is not a simple discretionary decision. 
 

And that’s what the government needs to do here.  If this person has supported terrorism then the government needs to go before an immigration law judge and make the case.  I suspect if they do, it will be extremely flimsy. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

To bring the discussion back into the realm of the informational, I thought I’d offer a bit on the process and rights people have with regards to visas and deportation. 
 

Visa Applications Overseas: Applicants for most classes of visa overseas, especially non-immigrant visas, have almost no appeal rights.  In fact, for most cases, they are assumed to be intending illegal immigrants until they prove otherwise to a consular officer.  Under a provision of immigration law, a consular officer can also refuse a visa if it is suspected the person intends to use the visa in a “manner inconsistent with its purpose.” This basically means that a person can be denied because the officer doesn’t like the cut of his jib, and officers are encouraged to deploy this provision when an applicant gives them the ick or bad vibes.

This is basically a superpower.  Courts have established that consular officer decisions overseas are not subject to appeal or judicial review.  Admin law judges are also endowed with this narrow superpower for their decisions. 
 

Visa Revocations: If a person is outside the US, a visa can be revoked at any time by the State Department with no review or appeal.  However, there almost always needs to be a specific reason, simply “cause you’re sus” won’t work.  Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DHS can revoke visas inside the United States for “good and sufficient cause” with no review or appeal. 
 

Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card):  Now you have significant rights.  A green card holder can have his status revoked but only for specific cause.  Usually, this is fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal activity.  Support for terrorism is also a reason. A revocation must be approved by an immigration judge.  It is not a simple discretionary decision. 
 

And that’s what the government needs to do here.  If this person has supported terrorism then the government needs to go before an immigration law judge and make the case.  I suspect if they do, it will be extremely flimsy. 

This all tracks with my understanding as well.

Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It wouldn't surprise me.

As I said above, there's a deeper reason why many Jewish groups opposed the relabelling of Judaism as a nationality versus an ethnoreligious group. Criticism of a foreign state can be more easily twisted into supposed anti-semitism and, therefore, be considered in alignment with terrorist organizations that actually do want the destruction of Israel.

The redefinition also can be leaned on to make American Jews as something other than "American" and, therefore, more vulnerable to various "punishments" meted out by the regime. 

The nazis literally signed agreements with zionists (The Haavara Agreement of 1933), specifically because it gave the nazis a reason to set German Jews aside as separate and foreign. They were to ship all their Jews off to Palestine, and it was opposed by non-zionist German Jews who feared getting forcibly shipped off - or worse.

Quote

Until the Peel Partition Plan of 1937 forced Germany to reexamine its policy on Palestine, the Haavara Agreement did, for a while, meet both the goals of the Nazi regime and the goals of the Zionists. This becomes clear as Nicosia explores the impact on the Palestine issue of intra-German governmental and party considerations; he also investigates the roles English and Arab nationalism played in German policy calculations.

Nicosia examines the role of the SS, and it is noteworthy that there was some cooperation between the SS and the Revisionist Zionists in the period 1933-1937. There is of course some logic to this, since the SS recognized that the Revisionists were vigorously pursuing Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. This too was the rationale behind the German government's support of the Zionists' agricultural retraining program; incidentally, Nicosia thoughtfully provides a map showing the distribution of the retraining centers (Appendix 11, p. 217). In retrospect, it is difficult for us to imagine that the Nazis encouraged Zionists from Palestine to enter Germany, teach Hebrew, educate German Jews about Palestine, and even display the blue and white Jewish national flag; the Revisionist Zionists even wore uniforms. Clearly this was all done for the promotion of purely German domestic and economic ends, with no concern for the Palestine situation itself.

Hitler's attitude toward the British Empire was a crucial factor determining his approach to the Palestine question. "Hitler's Englandpolitik during the 1930s was the single most important factor that influenced the attitudes and policy of his regime toward the Arab world in general and Arab aspirations in Palestine in particular" (p. 83). To support the Arab cause in Palestine would have alienated Great Britain, which saw Palestine as strategically important at a time when Hitler was trying to obtain an Anglo-German alliance. It also would have violated racial ideology by supporting an inferior race (the Arabs) against a superior race (the British).

Zionists playing okeydoke with authoritarians and dictators is not exactly new.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What laws did he violate? The government isn't even pretending he broke the law.

 

On 3/10/2025 at 5:00 PM, Laxtonto said:

 8 USC 1182

and 8 USC 1227

This has been this way since 2005 and worst, has been used this way in the past. Note that no “material” support of terrorism needs to be alleged and no formal crime must be committed. Mere speech suffices. No due process, only "reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry".

As someone who works with international students on a daily basis, this is why I caution them all to not get involved in things like this. There is a much different set of rules for a green card holder or being on a student visa and being a citizen. It is not very difficult to come up with "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" as defined as "(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" 

I think this is the gist of it. 

https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1899892869332173133

"Coming to the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The Trump Administration is determined to deny or revoke your visa if you're here to support terrorists."

More in the video from Rubio above.

Also, as has been stated by others they're not in circles singing Kumbaya

Amid Latest Columbia University Controversy, Media Fails to Convey Pro-Terror Radicalism Driving Key Players | Combat Antisemitism Movement

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Girth Brooks said:

 

I think this is the gist of it. 

https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1899892869332173133

"Coming to the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The Trump Administration is determined to deny or revoke your visa if you're here to support terrorists."

More in the video from Rubio above.

Also, as has been stated by others they're not in circles singing Kumbaya

Amid Latest Columbia University Controversy, Media Fails to Convey Pro-Terror Radicalism Driving Key Players | Combat Antisemitism Movement

 

Fuck off, GRU.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...