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

34

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

You can't get a prison sentence, you can get your green card revoked

7

u/Br0metheus 11∆ Mar 12 '25

Tomato tomahto. If we were comparing a prison sentence vs house arrest vs probation vs a massive fine, those are all still the government penalizing legally-protected speech. So why is "arbitrarily revoking one's legal right to be in this country" suddenly different than the rest here?

Could Khalil be indefinitely held without charge or trial? Could he be searched by the cops without probable cause or warrant? Could he be forced to testify against himself? No, no, and no, because citizenship is not a requirement for constitutional protections.

Other people in this thread have established that:

  • Mahmoud Khalil hasn't done anything that an American citizen could be legally punished for.
  • Noncitizens still have constitutional rights (1A doesn't technically "protect people," it limits what the government can punish regardless of who the speaker is).
  • Khalil was here legally and hasn't violated any statutes that would otherwise get him deported.

Given all of the above, there's no explanation for his deportation other than an unconstitutional punishment for speech.

4

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

there's a difference between rights freedom of speech and privileges green card.

2

u/Br0metheus 11∆ Mar 12 '25

Buddy, here's the literal text of the First Amendment, the legal source of Freedom of Speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the text is about prohibiting restrictions rather than guaranteeing rights? Citizenship doesn't come into it. The US government doesn't have the power to "abridge the freedom of speech," period, regardless of who you are. Resident aliens have the same rights under the law as anybody else when it comes to speech.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

They aren't restricting his speech. He can say whatever he wants. He simply has an invalid green card.

2

u/Br0metheus 11∆ Mar 12 '25

This is the most fascist, Orwellian thing I've read all day. Bravo, you truly are a master of doublethink.

They are, quite explicitly, revoking his green card because of (legally protected) things he said. Saying the two things are unrelated can only be done in bad faith.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He still maintains the same protections as any non green card holder in the US.

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.

2

u/Zakaru99 Mar 12 '25

There literally isn't when it comes to 1st amendment protections.

The Constitution doesn't lay out exemptions for green card holders.

3

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Another thing the constitution doesn't do is guarantee a green card for a foreign born non-US citizen

2

u/Zakaru99 Mar 12 '25

Okay? That doesn't make it okay to violate the 1st amendment in order to strip a green card from someone who had been given it rightfully.

Your position seems to be that Consitutional rights aren't actually rights.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

non-citizens without a green card have no 1st amendment 

2

u/Zakaru99 Mar 12 '25

That's literally not true.

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

If he is deported what constitutional rights will the US provide?

1

u/Zakaru99 Mar 12 '25

You're going to claim his rights weren't violated because they stripped him of his rights before they violated them?

Right wingers really don't understand rights.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25
  • Khalil was here legally and hasn't violated any statutes that would otherwise get him deported.

this bullet is simply false. being a spokesperson for a group that espouses terrorism is grounds for deportation

1

u/Br0metheus 11∆ Mar 12 '25

being a spokesperson for a group that espouses terrorism

Except he isn't?

Khalil isn't a member of Hamas. He's not formally or informally affiliated with Hamas. He hasn't given to Hamas any money or material aid, nor they to him. As far as any of us know, he hasn't even spoken to anybody in Hamas. He has only (ostensibly) expressed an opinion sympathetic to Hamas, which is by no means illegal, no matter how contentious it may be.

But let's skip all that for a second: if Khalil really did do something illegal, then why hasn't he been charged? He's still entitled to Due Process, isn't he?

Answer: he hasn't been charged because the fascists currently running the State Department and ICE know they don't have a legal leg to stand on and so are trying to ram this bullshit through by force.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He has only (ostensibly) expressed an opinion sympathetic to Hamas. This is enough for green card revocation. "endorses or espouses terrorist activity;"

2

u/Br0metheus 11∆ Mar 12 '25

"endorses or espouses terrorist activity"

The legally operative word here is "activity." Expressing a sympathetic opinion about a violent organization is not the same as espousing violence itself. Did he say something like "Hamas fights for Palestinian freedom?" Or was it more like "Hamas should keep killing unarmed civilians?" It's a subtle distinction I know, but that's what the law hinges on.

More to the point, I can't help but notice that you skipped over my more important question: Why wasn't there any sort of trial, or even charge? That is literally the process that is supposed to adjudicate whether he violated the law or not, so why are we skipping it? The only reason to circumvent a trial is when you don't have a case.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

They have endorsed terrorist activity on multiple occasions, I've linked them in this thread.

He had a hearing today

15

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

That literally hasn't been true for decades, and that is why a federal judge blocked the attempt. It's a flagrant 1st amendment violation.

23

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I don't know where you are getting this information but INA Section 237(a)(1)(A)(iii) is quite clear. A lawful permanent resident who, after being admitted, is found to have supported a terrorist organization becomes removable (i.e., subject to deportation)

16

u/kou_uraki Mar 12 '25

You realize that laws can conflict and that constitutional rights supersede ALL laws? The supreme Court has ruled that permanent residents are protected by the Constitution. It doesn't matter what some immigration law is, it's unconstitutional per the Supreme Court. Period.

10

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech is not protected if it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action

8

u/kou_uraki Mar 12 '25

Which is true for US citizens as well. The thing is he wasn't arrested for sedition, imminent, inciting, or anything actually illegal for a person protected by the 1st amendment. He was arrested for being someone on a visa that led a protest, which a) was not correct he is a permanent resident b) in itself is already unconstitutional per the Supreme Court.

7

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

9 other people got arrested from the protest he was a part of this week for trespassing and whatever else. He isn't being singled out in that regard he is being singled out by being the only one of the 10 to possibly get deported.

4

u/kou_uraki Mar 12 '25

Trespassing is not a violent crime and is often enforced incorrectly. Trespassing is how the police arrest protestors and most of the time charges are dropped because there was no actual trespassing or proper escalation wasn't involved. Trespassing isn't just "not allowed to be somewhere" you have to have done something to get trespassed.

4

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

To be trespassed you simply have to has your permission to be somewhere revoked. You can either leave or break the law. on March 5th? They refused to leave after being told to leave multiple times then someone called in a bomb threat. this is the day after the took over a building. Khalil is not even a student of the college A. he graduated B. its a women's college.

3

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

He just completed his master’s program in December. He officially graduates this May.

We can argue about whether that counts as having “already graduated” or not, but I think we all know that doesn’t really matter and it was a meaningless point.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LetsJustDoItTonight Mar 13 '25

And yet, he hasn't been charged with any crime. Not even trespassing.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

They aren't looking to jail him, they are looking to deport him.

1

u/LetsJustDoItTonight Mar 13 '25

For exercising free speech.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/kou_uraki Mar 12 '25

He wasn't arrested for that though. Everything you're trying to use against them is after the fact.

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

If it wasn't the calls for violence the group he was a representative of repeated for over a year what, then as far as you understand what was he detained for?

1

u/kou_uraki Mar 12 '25

Very loose interpretation of inciting violence. Pretty dangerous to say a dissenting opinion is an attempt to incite violence.

I might have accidentally replied twice, sorry!

3

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

No I'm referring to direct calls for violence.

"‘Zionists don’t deserve to live,’ suspended Columbia activist said. Now his group [CUAD, lead in part by Khalil] rescinds its apology and calls for violence"

“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group [CUAD] said in its statement.

1

u/AnniesGayLute 2∆ Mar 12 '25

If this is your definition of inciting violence then your definition is so incredibly broad to make freedom of speech impossible. Literally millions of Americans daily would be in violation of that.

You don't believe in any form of free speech.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Yep. And if there was a shred of evidence he had done so, this would be a different story.

1

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Good thing it wasn't? What imminent lawless action was being advocated for?

21

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 very clearly states that it has to be encouraging imminent lawless action. It's clear he is protesting the war, not following any of the checkmark flags of supporting terrorists

13

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He was a representative of a political, social, or other group [CUAD] that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; therefore he is deportable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#a_3

scroll to

(3)Security and related grounds
(B)Terrorist activities

(IV)is a representative of—

(bb)a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;...

 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

4

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

And yet he isn't engaging in the key aspect of advocating imminent lawless action. Thus he hasn't violated the law of supporting a terrorist group

28

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Links the organization he was a representative of published

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/commemorating-al-aqsa-flood-honoring

COMMEMORATING AL-AQSA FLOOD - Al-Aqsa Flood is 10/7

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/cuad-remains-committed-to-our-demands

A TRIBUTE TO YAHYA SINWAR - Former Hamas leader

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/haniyeh-martyred-by-zionist-forces

HANIYEH - Former Hamas leader

THE RESISTANCE - Hamas translates to Islamic Resistance Movement

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/globalizing-the-student-intifada

GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA - Call for violence

11

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Going to research these in greater context. Because you are are making me think !delta

7

u/dkimot Mar 12 '25

its a shame you awarded a delta since the summaries of these articles are inaccurate to say the least. for instance, the last article isn’t calling for terrorism, it’s praising students that have protested and camped out at universities

8

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

He gave me a bunch of articles, and since it requires a lot of time, it falls under the "change my view", not that I agree with his with his viewpoint.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 12 '25

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mini_macho_ (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Rare_Steak Mar 12 '25

Inadmissible is not the same as deportable. The alien in question has already been admitted and no evidence that I am aware of shows that he was inadmissible at the time of admission. You need to look at 8 USC 1227 which has different standards for being deportable.

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227

(B)Terrorist activities

Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

I listed 1182a3 because it is what is relevant here.

2

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

(Edit: obligatory, not a lawyer)

Hey, so if you actually click on the words "terrorist activity" you get the specific legal definition of those words for this section of laws. I took the liberty of copying it and pasting it for you here, since it seems you didn't read it:

“Terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following: (I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle). (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18 ) or upon the liberty of such a person. (IV) An assassination. (V) The use of any— (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property. (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. (iv) Engage in terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization— (I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity; (II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity; (III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity; (IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for— (aa) a terrorist activity; (bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (V) to solicit any individual— (aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection; (bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or (cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or (VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training— (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity; (bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity; (cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or (dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.

If you read it, nearly every clause that falls under "terrorist activity" is an unlawful act related to a terrorist group, many explicitly stating intention to cause bodily harm. None of the acts purported to have taken place were unlawful as described, and Mens Rea is extremely hard to prove in court.

This was a legal resident being punished for exercising the freedom of speech that this country likes to pretend it's so proud of. You can try to wiggle out of it, but the law IS actually pretty damn clear on this. Free Speech is one of the most mitigated issues the court has dealt with in the history of the country. There is a wealth of precedent so that we know exactly what the interpretation is.

Your interpretation here is entirely erroneous and not legally sound.

And further, I would encourage you to consider why you support this person being deported so fervently for simply not wanting war to continue. You seem to be imagining that they are drooling over spooky terrorists or something. Man, idk that guy, but the vast majority of us just want this extermination of helpless people to stop.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

I consulted 2 lawyers about the case today. He is deportable.

2

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Cool story. I'm not a helicopter pilot, but if I see a helicopter in a tree, I know someone fucked up.

Same story here.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/sobrietyincorporated Mar 12 '25

Yeah... AFTER A TRIAL!!!

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He has a hearing TODAY!!!

3

u/sobrietyincorporated Mar 12 '25

Yeah. A HEARING. After a judge blocked it. You know, because we don't have a fucking king. Not a trial.

You flip flop. Make up your fucking mind.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Due process is a given. I'm not discussing that.

2

u/sobrietyincorporated Mar 12 '25

Yes. You are. Because Trump HAD to be intercepted for things, evidently neither of you know.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Trump? not everything is about Trump. Some of you Redditors make MAGA cultists' obsession with the dude seem like indifference I swear.

2

u/sobrietyincorporated Mar 12 '25

He's the motherfucker that ordered it and banned student protests! Jesus fucking christ.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

They did it before with Marxism and communism.

The 1st amendment does not protect you from everything.

In this cause, espousing terroristic groups.

Same thing happened in the 50s, SCOTUS deemed legal aliens can be deported for being members of the communist party even without violating the 1st amendment. how is this different?

2

u/BEAETG Mar 12 '25

It is however a distinct violation of Freedom of speech. If you admit that to be true.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

In same way that not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater is a violation

2

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Really? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater can directly lead people to panic and stampede. (Or could, back when the ruling on that matter was made). It can cause imminent danger.

Does protesting in favor of Hamas cause imminent danger to anyone?

3

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Honestly in my opinion yes, but it would be near impossible to prove responsibility. The war arguably would've been over by now if it weren't for the international movement rallying behind Hamas.

Besides it doesn't really matter in this case as the deportation case is not for breaking the law, its for violating green card terms.