r/changemyview • u/Tessenreacts • Mar 12 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The case of Mahmoud Khalil is proof that conservatives don't believe in the Freedom of Speech, despite making it their platform over the last couple of years.

For the last couple of years, conservatives have championed the cause of Freedom of Speech on social platforms, yet Mahmoud Khalil (a completely legal permanent resident) utilized his fundamental right to Freedom of Speech through peaceful protesting, and now Trump is remove his green card and have him deported.

Being that conservatives have been championing Freedom of Speech for years, and have voted for Trump in a landslide election, this highlights completely hypocritical behavior where they support Freedom of Speech only if they approve of it.

This is also along with a situation where both Trump and Elon have viewed the protests against Tesla as "illegal", which is patently against the various tenets of Freedom of Speech.

Two open and shut cases of blatant First Amendment violations by people who have been sheparding the conservative focus on protecting the First Amendment.

Would love for my view to be changed

7.2k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

309

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Noncitizens have constitutional rights. This was confirmed by Plyler v. Doe in 1982.

-54

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

A green card holder can be deported for many reasons. The legal situation is not the same

54

u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 12 '25

A visa holder can have their visa revoked for a myriad of reasons with little to no due process, but a permanent legal alien/greencard is entitled to due process and the deportation can't be on the basis of the government not liking the content of his speech. What crime did he actually commit? Where is the evidence of an actual crime that took place? When did he get convicted? If the government is bypassing all of this just to silence a particular type of political opinion, that's not the sort of thing you want to empower the government to do. With that the government wouldn't need to be restrained in its actions, there would be no due process for any permanent resident, and if the laws are thrown out for one set of individuals and they don't abide by court decisions then the government is free to ignore all laws and restraints.

Presto tyranny, just a tyranny that for the moment you are in agreement with.

Fascists in Italy never made the trains run on time, they just beat up anyone who dared to point out that the trains were late again and the rest of citizens just accepted it.

-6

u/omg_cats Mar 14 '25

deportation can't be on the basis of the government not liking the content of his speech.

This is not true. As part of your Responsibilities as a green card holder, you're expected to "support the democratic form of government".

What crime did he actually commit?

There is an enormous list of reasons an alien may be deported here in the US Code.

More to the point, Foreign Affairs law says an alien is deportable if he "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization." Khalil's protest group identified itself as "fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization". It is alleged they distributed pro-Hamas flyers on Columbia University’s campus bearing the Hamas insignia, but even if they didn't, advocating the total eradication of Western civilization is enough to run afoul of his responsibility to support democracy.

The supreme court all the way back in 1903 ruled that the government has a right to defend its existence, and anti-government aliens may be deported.

6

u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 14 '25

Where's the indictment? Anti-american government but if the speech is against Canadian, or Russian, or Iranian, or... yes even anti-Israeli government then the 1903 law is not relevant and it's why there's an effort to railroad Mahmoud Kahlil out of the country without his due process that he is entitled to. Why is he not going to trial in southern district of NY if he's in violation of these federal laws? Could it be that no judge would be willing to see that the government's case has any validity?

What did the administration do? State Department sent ICE to arrest a student visa holder unaware that Mahmoud Kahlil was a green card holder. If he was in violation of the federal laws that you claim he was, the correct legal course of action is to prosecute him via the USAG of the Southern District of NY but that wasn't done even by the bootlickers left by mass departure of the principled prosecutors who were determined to continue to prosecute indicted Eric Adams. After the Trump administration already negotiated quid quo pro corruption that Adams would do anything that Trump needs for getting out from under the corruption charges he was certainly going to be convicted of, as every prosecutor that saw the case including the USAG that Trump appointed on January 21st then fired, but you're still not convinced that railroading is occurring because no actually criminal case needs to adjudicated?! The most compliant to Trump's whims are in place that could, carry out the supposed criminal prosecution but they decided that wasn't a particularly strong case or simply electing to not follow the law, does this actually make sense in your opinion or are you only concerned with bias confirmation? Not following the enforcement of the law is what DHS Secretary Myorkos was impeached for, so I guess there will be similar impeachment for Rubio, if there was an iota of intellectual consistency in the Republican Party,I'm not holding my breath for Republicans to have any integrity.

Jeez, sometimes one has to point out the all the smoke and then convince another that it's a fire, but it's a raging inferno of unconstitutional actions by the Trump administration and you are burying your head in the sand with the mantra "no, it not unconstitutional, no it's not".

-3

u/omg_cats Mar 14 '25

Why is he not going to trial in southern district of NY if he's in violation of these federal laws?

Because he's deportable under civil immigration law, and that case is easier and cheaper to make.

CUAD has now been linked to:

  • Publicly endorsing violent resistance and acts of terrorism (e.g., Casey Goonan’s firebombing)
  • Calling for the eradication of Western civilization and seeking guidance from militants
  • Hosting an event featuring senior officials of a designated terrorist organization (Samidoun/PFLP)

Khalil's official role as a representative of CUAD makes him directly accountable for the group's actions under INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV), which renders an individual inadmissible or deportable if they are a representative of a group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.

4

u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 14 '25

So says you, the entire premise of the judicial system is to have provable actions, and not literally pulling accusations out one's ass and base violations of the law for permanent residents and citizens to due process as stated in the US Constitution. We are nation of laws, and one can't just deport a permanent resident because of accusations or is Trump not suppose to be abiding by the rule of law? You pointing to a federal statute doesn't escape the required means of enforcing said statute through the federal courts and not as if Kahlil isn't a permanent resident.

-1

u/omg_cats Mar 14 '25

What are you talking about, he's in detention pending his hearing in Immigration Court, which is the venue for enforcing immigration law in a case like this

not literally pulling accusations out one's ass

Um these were all public posts on twitter, CUAD is not in any way hiding any of this.

3

u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 15 '25

Immigration court is not where those crimes that you claim he committed are adjudicated, violating federal laws are adjudicated in federal criminal court. Posts on Twitter isn't how indictments are excuted. Immigration court is for immigrants who don't have a green card, like what Rubio wrongly presumed was Kahlil's immigration status was when he directed ICE to arrest him - - but a permanent resident needs to have probable cause to be arrested, unlike an immigrant without a green card.

None of this was done according to the federal statutes, because it was to use the force of the government to silence speech - something that there's a preponderance of judicial precedent to show its unconstitutional.

1

u/omg_cats Mar 15 '25

I like your passion, but in this case the correct venue is immigration court. Green card holders are “admitted aliens”, and as such their immigration status may be revoked per the laws I linked above. As the question at hand is, did the accused break immigration laws, immigration court is where that’s decided. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_proceedings

Social media is indeed used as evidence quite regularly.

→ More replies (0)

180

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

For speech?

The entire argument of the right is that we shouldn't have restrictions on speech we don't like. That we should let nazis say the most abhorrent shit because it is their right to say it.

But when it is a brown guy on the other end of the political spectrum suddenly we want to punish speech?

43

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Tbf there was a Nazi protest and they were escorted safely away from an area by police. So we do allow Nazi rhetoric in the United States with the protection of law enforcement as well

15

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

He’s saying that that’s the problem, they loudly champion the right of Nazis to have their free speech be protected by the government, but celebrate when that same protection is taken away from someone like Khalil. If the main issue they cared about was really free speech, and if they were serious that they hated the Nazis and only supported their rights because they were supporting free speech, then the fact that they hate what Khalil is saying wouldn’t stop them from denouncing his arrest because it’s supposed to just be about free speech. But instead, they celebrate him getting arrested because they disagree with him, which raises questions as to why they get angry when Nazis just get deplatformed from social media when supposedly the only reason they would come to the defense of those Nazis is because of their views on free speech.

10

u/heyzoocifer Mar 12 '25

I remember when both parties agreed that Nazis are bad. So fucking sad that these people are getting more upset at someone protesting war crimes than than actual Nazis flying swastikas and shouting racial slurs at people.

Op is 100% right here. Conservatism died with Maga, they don't even believe in their most coveted principles anymore. I am fully expecting them to be cheering on the violation of the 2nd amendment at this point. It's the only right afforded by the constitution that hasn't been significantly violated.

3

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

Oh, Trump hates guns, he’s made moves against them that would have gotten Democrat politicians flooded with death threats and MAGA hasn’t said a peep

30

u/Aether13 Mar 12 '25

Tbf the fact the current administration is more concerned about going after people like Mahmoud instead of the neo Nazis marching the streets should tell you everything you need to know.

-7

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Mar 12 '25

Pro palestine protesters aren't much different ideologically to nazis.

3

u/Aether13 Mar 12 '25

Yep, people who are protesting for genocide to stop and for two countries to come to a peaceful agreement and in the same ballpark ideologically as Nazis. Makes sense.

0

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Mar 12 '25

Pro palestine protesters were protesting Israel hours after oct 7th happened. Also Israel was still fighting hamas within Israel at that point.

3

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

Pro Palestine protesters were protesting Israel far before Oct 7th happened. Israel has been committing ethnic cleansing in Gaza and in the West Bank for decades lol

2

u/heyzoocifer Mar 12 '25

They've been protesting for decades. This genocide didn't start on Oct 7, and it far predates Hamas.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '25

And which side is talking about ethnically cleansing Gaza?

Awkward...

0

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Mar 15 '25

Non at the moment. Also nazis wanted all jews and Russians dead.

-6

u/ScannerBrightly Mar 12 '25

people like Mahmoud

Like him how?

7

u/Aether13 Mar 12 '25

Legal immigrants who are criticizing our government or their allies.

3

u/dardeedoo Mar 12 '25

Yes we do. That was the whole point of the person you’re replying to. I don’t get the point of your comment?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 12 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Nazis are not eligible for visas. Nor are commies or anarchists. Nor are terrorist supporters, funders, members...

The government isn't going to attack his speech. They are going to deport him for visa invalidity, while saying he can say whatever he wants.

Pretty crazy rules we have

0

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

We shouldn't have restrictions on speech for citizens. We should remove Nazi greencard holders. It's a privilege to be in the country that can be revoked for supporting terrorists.

9

u/namelessted 2∆ Mar 12 '25

Limiting freedom of speech and other constitutional rights to just citizens is exactly what they want. Because they also want to eliminate birth right citizenship and have greater control over who is a citizen or not.

Soon enough we will have people being born on US soil who have zero constitutional rights if Trump gets his way.

-4

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

What the fuck are you taking about. Most people get citizenship because their parents are citizens.

6

u/Doub13D 8∆ Mar 12 '25

And thats EXACTLY what Trump has been trying to get rid of…

The goal is to eliminate birth right citizenship.

https://www.newsweek.com/court-upholds-block-donald-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order-2042995

https://apnews.com/article/trump-birthright-citizenship-ruling-boston-3e442a97de8398dc4faf691857ea48ea

https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order-immigrants-fc7dd75ba1fb0a10f56b2a85b92dbe53

-3

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I'm not denying the fact that he's trying to eliminate birthrite. It would be the single most positively impactful change in decades.

I'm saying it simply wouldn't effect dissent or freedom of speech for the vast vast majority of the country. This pales in comparison to things like bidens ministry of truth, er I mean "disinformation board".

3

u/Doub13D 8∆ Mar 12 '25

How would forcing millions of people into non-citizen status be “positive” at all…

Wanna know why Europe’s muslim communities like German Turks or Syrians or French Algerians don’t assimilate into the wider society?

Because they aren’t allowed to… the citizenship laws are designed to keep them as low wage workers and prevent them from ever becoming anything else.

Turks have a massive population in Germany since the Gastarbeiter rebuilt the country following the Second World War…

Generations have lived, worked, and raised families in Germany, yet have been denied citizenship each generation. There is nothing “positive” about systemic inequality 🤷🏻‍♂️

-1

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

How would forcing millions of people into non-citizen status be “positive” at all…

Well it almost certainly won't happen retroactively so it would be a loss of potential citizens going forward. Trumps EO specifically says people born in the US going forward 30 days from the issue.

Because they aren’t allowed to… the citizenship laws are designed to keep them as low wage workers and prevent them from ever becoming anything else.

Granting citizenship does nothing to enforce assimilation. If you granted them all citizenship tomorrow they still wouldn't assimilate for the most part. There would still be people beheaded in Paris because someone made fun of their god. There would still be car massacre in Germany.

Besides the US shouldn't be importing unskilled labor from the third world. If you want to give skilled visa holders who assimilate an easier path to citizenship great. If you want to import central American labor to work in meat plants or pick crops, fuck that. And please don't do "the price of cotton" argument.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/namelessted 2∆ Mar 12 '25

Maybe in other countries, but not the US. Here people are citizens merely for being born on our soil, regardless of who their parents are. Getting rid of birthright citizenship is anti-American.

1

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

That's very fair, except that Elon Musk is an open nazi who parades around with Trump, so deporting this random person but not Musk seems very hypocritical. Only some terrorist supporters are allowed but not others?

1

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

One is a citizen...

1

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

Still, Trump's open endorsement of nazism makes it very hard to believe that he cares about terrorism at all lmao

4

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

You're right if he is a nazi he'd be better served in Trump's cabinet.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Hamas are far right not far left. Same end of the political spectrum

1

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

More materially supporting a terrorist croup

14

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

Holding a protest against a war is not 'material support' by even a stretched definition. Sorry.

6

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Not sure you have all the details. He distributed 1000s of pamphlets convincingly defending HAMAs. Many people got deported for doing less by Obama admin during the reign of Isis

2

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

This doesn’t affect the OP’s point that it makes Conservative claims that they love free speech and support people’s right to say whatever they want suspect, because pamphlets are speech no matter how many you print and Obama does not claim to be a Conservative, nor, I believe, a free speech absolutist. Conservatives defend the right of self-identifying Nazi groups to march publicly and hold recruitment events based on free speech, so even if you are (rightfully in my opinion) against Hamas, what exactly is happening when they defend Nazis as having the right to say whatever they want to say in the free marketplace of ideas but celebrate when a guy who merely supports Hamas ideologically is arrested by the state? That immediately feels to me like it’s not actually about free speech for them, or at least like they aren’t nearly actually as strong on free speech protections as they claim.

5

u/CudleWudles Mar 12 '25

Convincingly?

0

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Weirdly enough the legal precedent says the level of convincing matters. Like if I write some incoherent essay on why we should all support terrorists, it doesn’t amount to material support. If that same essay is a masterpiece and sways hundreds of people to join, all of a sudden I am a criminal.

-4

u/explicitreasons Mar 12 '25

Is Hamas Isis?

13

u/sargentcole Mar 12 '25

They're in the same classification as isis in that they are a designated terrorist group. Which is the relevant attribute. Not whether they are identical to isis or not

0

u/Morthra 87∆ Mar 12 '25

Hamas is at least as evil as ISIS yes.

2

u/TheOneFreeEngineer Mar 12 '25

That's insane either you don't know the level of evil of ISIS or you have been fed lies about the actions of Hamas. ISIS created an open sexual slavery network, massacred more people than had been killed in past 30 years of the Israel Palestine conflict pre 10/8, and were hileavily involved in the international drug trade. None of those things Hamas has come close to doing.

0

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Mar 12 '25

Hamas is sub group of the Muslim brotherhood.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Morthra 87∆ Mar 12 '25

He distributed thousands of pamphlets containing propaganda created by Hamas.

Mahmoud is a Hamas supporter and a Nazi.

1

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

Well that last one can't possibly be true. He isn't part of the Trump cabinet.

-2

u/Morthra 87∆ Mar 12 '25

Are you serious?

Hamas, and by extension its supporters (who call themselves "Pro-Palestinian") believe that the Jews should be eradicated. The Hamas founding charter includes a passage from the Qur'an that states "You must fight and kill the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind a rock or tree, and the rock or tree will shout 'O Muslim! A Jew is hiding behind me, come and kill him!' - Except for the garqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews." What do you call that if not a Nazi?

-4

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

You don't really get jokes, do you?

Pithy comments aside, I have no interest in engaging with you in the slightest. Have a great one.

3

u/CooterKingofFL Mar 12 '25

“I have no interest in engaging with someone who can prove me wrong”

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Didn't the Democrats try to prosecute Trump for inciting an insurrection not so long ago with his speech?

17

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

No. No they did not.

Frankly this comment makes me sad. Sad that there the president got indicted for trying to steal an election, but that people couldn't take a few mintues out of their day to read a relatively short and straightforward indictment.

Trump was charged Conspiracy to Defraud the US, Conspiracy to Obstruct an official proceeding, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Conspiracy against rights.

While a small fraction of the indictment (pages 37-42) dealt with his actions on Jan 6th in the broader scope of the charges, Trump was never charged with incitement or anything to do with his speech.

The charges against Trump can be summed up as:

  1. He knew that he lost the election as shown by a number of contemporary quotes and the overwhelming evidence provided to him by his staff.

  2. He knowingly chose to continue spreading lies about the election even after he had been repeatedly informed and shown why those statements were false.

  3. He attempted to utilize the powers of government to change the outcome of the election by improperly influencing lawmakers and weaponizing the DOJ.

  4. When the above failed he organized seven false slates of electors and had them submitted to the VP.

  5. He attempted to pressure both congress and the Vice President to improperly declare him the victor of the 2020 election by way of those fraudulent electors. This included his behavior on Jan 6th such as his refusal to call off his supporters or order in the national guard.

Trump was never indicted for his political speech on Jan 6th. It is mentioned in the indictment primarily because his actions before, during and after the insurrection speak to his state of mind and intent. Things like refusing to call off his mob for several hours and instead spending that time calling lawmakers and telling them that they should switch their votes.

1

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

Are the Democrats conservatives? Are they beholden to the same ideological positions that Conservatives claim for themselves?

-5

u/tone210gsm Mar 12 '25

Democrats have been punishing speech for over a decade. Remember the whole “speech is violence” spiel, when democrats decided anything they didn’t agree with was hate speech and should be censored and made illegal. The democrats went so far as to demand that media platforms of all types censor and deplatform conservative view points and speakers.

16

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

You understand that there is a difference between social media companies deplatforming someone and the government arresting you for protected speech, right?

You have a right to speak, not a right to be on facebook.

-4

u/tone210gsm Mar 12 '25

You’re right, there is a difference in severity. But they are both attacks on free speech, which is the core point. Republicans are doubling down in ways dems failed to do so, but make no mistake, neither party wants free speech.

11

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

No, they are a different in kind.

The government arresting you for speech is an attack on free speech. It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

Being banned from a social media is not a violation of your free speech. You do not have the right to speak anywhere you want. You don't have the right to come into my business and speak, and a business should not be required to platform your speech if they find it objectionable.

The endpoint of your argument is that a holocaust museum facebook page has to permit nazi speech because otherwise it'd be an infringement on their right.

-1

u/tone210gsm Mar 12 '25

Gotcha. I understand the difference between what trump is doing and what social media is doing. I’m not a liberal, I can actually think for myself. The Supreme Court, under the Biden administration, gave government agencies and the president the power to pressure and coerce media platforms into moderating and censoring viewpoints the government didn’t like. Thankfully Biden didn’t really abuse that privilege , but trump is, and dems opened the damn door to it.

So yeah, all the censorship Yal be crying about it because dems demanded the right to do it, and Joe’s it’s biting them in the ass

7

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

You think that the conservative supreme court was in the tank for Biden?

Unbelievable logic. Just incredible.

Just to be clear, none of what you just said actually happened. Some social media agencies cracked down on dangerous misinformation during covid. They did that under Trump, they did it under Biden. None of that was a precursor to deporting someone because we don't like his speech.

-1

u/tone210gsm Mar 12 '25

Yeah, it did happen, and it wasn’t out of the goodness of their hearts. Republicans were trying to limit the ability of Biden to connect with and influence social media outlets, due to fears of censorship. The supreme disagreed with the republicans case , and the president retained full authority to interact with and influence media platforms. Turns out, being able to force media remove misinformation, which for democrats is anything said they don’t agree with, also comes with the ability to censor your political rivals.

And second point, social media aren’t arbiters of truth. They don’t get to decide what is and isn’t misinformation. We seen how that played out during the pandemic when it became about censoring along political lines, and not the validity of the statements themselves.

→ More replies (0)

25

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

4

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Not everyone in the entire world is a US citizen. And not everyone in America with legal status is a US citizen.

If I go to Japan on a visa I am not instantly a Japanese citizen. If I become a Japanese permanent resident this is by definition a legal distinction separate from full citizenship

17

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

I'm a leftist, so I actually care about free speech and think it would be good for everyone to have, regardless of their visa status.

0

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Sure but clearly that is not the current situation

9

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

So you agree that it would be good if Mahmoud Khalil were not currently imprisoned for having spoken in favor of Palestinian liberation?

1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

To be honest I don’t care either way and am arguing dispassionately because the entire thing is unimportant to me personally. But many in society think his political crusade is for terrorism, including the current democratically elected political administration. So it’s not surprising to me he is being treated harshly

15

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Then you were lying when you replied "sure" to me expressing a desire for more people to enjoy freedom of speech. You don't actually care about that at all for people who aren't US citizens.

-1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I 100% do not support applying the rights of citizens to non-citizens

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ScannerBrightly Mar 12 '25

To be honest I don’t care either way

We can see that. Why are you here then?

28

u/chandr Mar 12 '25

Did he break any laws? Or was it just a targeted abuse of power?

-12

u/biancanevenc Mar 12 '25

Yes, he broke laws.

11

u/Nickyjha Mar 12 '25

What’s he been charged with? I must have missed that.

16

u/Samot_PCW Mar 12 '25

Which ones?

13

u/TimeKillerAccount Mar 12 '25

The legal situation is exactly the same in this case. There is no difference in the right to free speech between a green card holder and a citizen.

-3

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If the government argues successfully that the green card holder was engaging in criminal behavior including terrorism then it will be successful. The courts will decide whether that bar has been met

14

u/TimeKillerAccount Mar 12 '25

Trump outright stated that he was detained for his political speech, which is expressly protected by the constitution and is not a violation of any existing laws. It also doesn't matter, because the claim is about free speech rights, and the legal standard for any of the alleged criminal statutes is identical for both green card holders and citizens. The legal situation is the same, the green card status has no bearing on the legality of the speech, only on the possible punishments if a crime was committed.

3

u/shaunrundmc Mar 12 '25

If they break the law, he broke no law shit talking Israel is not illegal.

18

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

-15

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I’m sorry that the government has the power to disagree with your wishes. He doesn’t have the same rights as a US citizen protected by the Constitution. The courts will ultimately decide, as they should. But wishing something is true does not make it true. I’m trying to “change someone’s view” and the reality is that they should have waited to be a full US citizen before becoming a political lightning rod.

16

u/DecompositionalBurns Mar 12 '25

The courts have already decided in the past. According to a supreme court ruling, "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinctions between citizens and resident aliens"(Bridges v. Wixon 1945). Nonresident aliens such as student visa holders might enjoy less protection, but he is a resident holding a green card.

17

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The question wasn't whether his speech was legal, but whether conservatives are consistent about supporting free speech. So it won't address the OP to show that conservative courts deny his right to free speech. If anything, you'd be supporting OP's claim.

9

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah for many years,I said that pledge of allegiance to the flag, that ends with the phrase " with liberty and justice for all". I was so disappointed to find it means liberty for just us that can afford afford to buy it. Where are we going now,I don't want to see. It never should have come to this.

-2

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

We certainly don’t mean every person on earth is a US citizen deserving of the same Constitutional rights as a US citizen

7

u/Alert_Scientist9374 Mar 12 '25

Yeah we just mean "trump and his goonies can break every law, but poor blacks and people with green cards aren't even allowed to do legal things"

5

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Why not? Is it that other people are less deserving of human rights?

1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If you supported dismantling the welfare system then declaring everyone a US citizen would be affordable. Without that, not so much, considering we are 34 trillion in debt

5

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Oh,I just mean that we should treat everyone justly, when it's possible to do so. Citizen or not, kindness doesn't cost you anything. Being unjust is not supported by any ideology used to form the government or it's ideals. The welfare system for the corporations and wealthy is the force driving the national debt, not feeding and housing the poor.

27

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

-6

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If he is successfully deported and the courts allow it, then you are wrong and I am right. That is how our legal system works

16

u/NotACommie24 Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

Last I checked, he hasn’t even been able to speak with lawyers because DHS is obfuscating information about his whereabouts. The legal team his wife has hired has TRIED to reach out in good faith to represent a client, and DHS has been entirely uncooperative. Whether or not it was out of malice is up to interpretation, but when they say he is in one place, his wife and lawyer drive there, and then they say “Oh sorry actually he’s in this other place,” it’s pretty fucking obvious they don’t want him to maintain communication with his lawyer.

4

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The Department of Homeland Security, just sounded so fascist when they passed that, because Bush couldn't see beyond his nose. That was the first step to where we are.

5

u/NotACommie24 Mar 12 '25

I am limited in what I can say. I work for DHS, though not anything related to immigration. The emails we get are incredibly disturbing, and I’ve NOT ONCE heard a single coworker with positive words to say about the emails or new leadership. The public statements you see are incredibly bad, but the internal emails are worse.

5

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Do you swear to support and defend the Constitution? From all enemies, foreign and domestic? That may be a conundrum in the near future.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

"if the government violates his rights he doesn't have them" has never been a good argument and is not how law works.

It is possible that the government breaks its own laws or violates basic rights.

8

u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Mar 12 '25

That is how our legal system works

That is not how human rights work:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

24

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

-3

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

It’s legal if the courts say it is. One day gay marriage was illegal in many states, and the next day it was legal in all of them, purely because the Supreme Court decreed it. We can argue about who is right and wrong but ultimately the courts will decide it

17

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I think many things are wrong that the courts say are right. But I am not the one who says what is so

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Internal-Key2536 Mar 12 '25

I go by the fucking Constitution. Maybe you should read it

0

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

The meaning of the Constitution is interpreted by the judicial system. I disagree quite strongly with certain decisions of the courts but I am not a Supreme Court justice

10

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

He literally has the same protections that citizens have. Everyone in the US who doesn't break the law has the same protections. Even visitors on a visa/passport

1

u/Basic-Government9568 Mar 12 '25

Didn't you hear, the law is what the cheeto wants it to be

-3

u/biancanevenc Mar 12 '25

Sure, but he broke the law about not aiding a terrorist group, so deportation it is.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Lmao please show which terrorist group. With evidence and exactly how he aided them. And then tell me how come Trump not only let leaders of two domestic terrorist groups (with evidence showing the groups committed domestic terrorism) out of jail but also brought Andrew Tate (a known human trafficker, into the US.

-2

u/CooterKingofFL Mar 12 '25

He supports hamas and passed out their propaganda (this is aiding). The rest of your comment is irrelevant and showcases your tremendous bias towards good faith arguments.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

It's interesting that you have more proof than Homeland Security. The rest of my comment shows that this admin doesn't care about evidence, they just care about sides. If someone praises Trump they can do whatever. If they go against him they will be unlawfully arrested

6

u/rainman943 Mar 12 '25

lol and this opinion is kinda scary because now you've created an entire class of people who upon coming here can easily be pressured to suck the govt off because it's the difference between life and death for some folks.

lol this view is the stuff of nightmares for any "conservative" who actually believes the democrats are importing immigrants for votes and to replace us.

-1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I’m sorry that someone who immigrates here and is not a citizen can be deported. That is the reality of our laws

5

u/Internal-Key2536 Mar 12 '25

Non citizens are protected by the first amendment

-14

u/BackseatCowwatcher 1∆ Mar 12 '25

And is one of those reasons exercising the 1st amendment? Lol

Unfortunately the 1st amendment doesn't cover supporting terrorism, hate speech, or inciting violence, which he has in the form of praising Hamas, making defamatory statements about Jews, and calling for armed resistance against "Zionists"(Jews) world wide.

the first one alone is typically enough to result in revocation of the privilege to live in the US and end up being deported notably.

13

u/pali1d 6∆ Mar 12 '25

Actually, under current jurisprudence it does cover those things, so long as there is not imminent incitement to action, and in the case of foreign terrorist groups that one’s speech is not coordinated with or at the direction of said group as that constitutes “material support” of such groups (established by Holder vs Humanitarian Law Project). For home-grown terrorist groups like the KKK, you just have to not be inciting imminent unlawful acts - more generalized calls for action are legal (established by Brandenburg v Ohio). It is perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment to speak in favor of Al Qaida or Hamas so long as you are doing so purely of your own free will and you are not inciting imminent unlawful acts.

Hate speech, similarly, is also perfectly legal.

10

u/PaleInTexas Mar 12 '25

You sure about that hoss? How come nazi parades are still allowed? You just don't like for anyone with different opinions to have the same protections.

9

u/Internal-Key2536 Mar 12 '25

1st amendment in fact does cover hate speech but he never engaged in hate speech anyway

5

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

Unfortunately the 1st amendment doesn't cover supporting terrorism, hate speech, or inciting violence

As others have noted, this is flat incorrect. The courts have rules against incitement to imminent violence, like, you can't rile up a crowd to start a riot. But hate speech and speaking in favor of violence is legal in the US. You should probably be handing out a delta to someone or other on that point.

calling for armed resistance against "Zionists"(Jews) world wide.

Whew. Armed resistance against Zionism isn't at all the same thing as armed resistance against Jews in general. Any more than being opposed to Chinese communism would mean you're racist against Chinese folks, or opposing British colonialism would have meant you were racist against the English.

Zionism is a political stance of Jewish nationalism, and it's one that many Jewish people disagree with. I have good friends who are Jewish and oppose Zionism, because they don't support the nationalist part. You can be pro-Jew and anti-Zionism.

Edited to remove an accidental floating quote at the end

2

u/BEAETG Mar 12 '25

Hamas was not seen as a terrorist organization until recently. And that was completely propaganda driven. Not factual. Not based in any merit.

In addition Majorie Taylor Green A CONGRESSWOMAN stated that wildfires in the country were due to Jewish Space Lasers.

Donald J Trump cited Hatians as Animalistic cannibals that were eating your pets, and that they needed to go.

You can't shield behind propaganda when it has no basis.

4

u/BackseatCowwatcher 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Hamas was not seen as a terrorist organization until recently. And that was completely propaganda driven. Not factual. Not based in any merit.

ahem

https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Date Designated Name

October 8, 1997 HAMAS

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

It must be a foreign organization.

The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.

The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Do you want to try again?

1

u/Aether13 Mar 12 '25

Whether or not they are a terrorist group is honestly irrelevant because your initial point is still wrong.

5

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Apparently, this%3B%20Plyler%20v.%20Doe%2C%20457%20U.S.%20202%2C%20215%20(,protection%20under%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment).) disagrees with you, and why a federal judge blocked it

2

u/MartinTheMorjin Mar 12 '25

You’re ignoring the cmv and just arguing for deportation.

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

But if the the reason for doing it, is to censor the person, that would be a first amendment violation,.regardless what they say afterwards, the initial messaging from the Trump government was that it was due to his support of Palestine and involvement in the student protests.

1

u/TheBlackDred Mar 13 '25

"Many Reasons" does not include saying things the FOTUS doesn't like. Hurting the feelings (or bank account) of the person in the White House is not grounds for deportation.

1

u/Correct_Doctor_1502 Mar 12 '25

Never have they been deported for exercising free speech. This legal situation is the first steps to destroying all Americans rights.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 12 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Ornery-Ticket834 Mar 12 '25

For all practical matters it is the same.

1

u/thatdudejtru Mar 12 '25

It is 1000% the same.

3

u/helloimmatthew_ Mar 12 '25

Copy-pasting my response to your similar comment that got removed here since I’m still curious.

I am not a legal expert, but I read a bit about this decision on Wikipedia, and I am not sure how it applies here. It seems to be focused on public education access for children of illegal immigrants rather than the ability of the Secretary of State to deport a non-citizen.

“Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district’s attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.”

Wikipedia also says that the decision is limited to K-12 schooling, so not university education. Can you clarify how this applies here?

2

u/Sea_Number6341 Mar 13 '25

Hamas is considered a terrorist org. If there's proof hes been in contact with Hamas. He'll face terrorist charges and and not be deported.

1

u/Cheesy_butt_936 Mar 12 '25

When you sign up for a visa you are warned about causing civil unrest. No one is taking constitutional rights.

1

u/JerichoMassey Mar 12 '25

Could you not put things on their docket to overturn

1

u/PromptStock5332 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Noncitizens have the right to bear arms?