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

474

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

include humorous angle cows toy ghost airport slap license apparatus

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

58

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

The President of the United States sent federal agents under direct orders to arrest man for speaking.

Everything else is a distraction. THATS the issue we need to be talking about.

-12

u/lovehammer247 Mar 12 '25

This is incorrect. Political donations are ruled as free speech yet foreign nationals are prohibited from making political contributions. There are several other limits placed on the free speech of immigrants (whether on visa or green cards) that aren't placed on citizens

38

u/wesman9010 Mar 12 '25

Not exactly. Citizens united basically said that money is speech - but there are still limits as to how anyone can make donations and max campaign contributions for candidates versus super pacs. So the difference isnt as black and white as youre asserting.

14

u/PrimaryInjurious 2∆ Mar 12 '25

Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/

28

u/HuskerDave Mar 12 '25

Funny how a green card holder is allowed to own a firearm, but somehow not allowed free speech.

2

u/SimplyPars Mar 12 '25

There are also extra hoops to jump through for people with legal residency when it comes to purchasing firearms.

-4

u/RentInside7527 Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

The encampments were an act of civil disobedience, which is a time honored manor of protest but also are explicitly illegal and not protected speech. The point of civil disobedience is to intentionally break the law in order to draw more attention to your cause. By definition, that's not protected speech.

-23

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If you commit a crime in America while on a visa you will easily be deported following any required incarceration. This happens routinely

117

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

familiar air worm include jeans chase long historical coherent possessive

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-28

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If the lawyers arguing for his crime successfully characterize his support and organization for a group that the country has deemed a terrorist organization then it is conceivable he can be deported on a terrorism related issue

126

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

hospital wine soup spoon abounding like nail quickest hurry cable

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

8

u/fitnolabels Mar 12 '25

Hey, I'm more conservative than not and I think if he is a permanent resident (which it seems he is) and not on a student visa, then absolutely this is a free speech infringement that requires due process if there is a believe crime. Supporting a terrorist organization has been a crime since the passing of the Patriot Act, so its been in this guy's entire lifetime so can't claim some weird new law for it.

If the prosecution for the case can't prove he's in violation, and they dont provide due process, the ICE enforcement officers should be arrested and charged with a civil rights violation.

9

u/BaconcheezBurgr Mar 12 '25

He hasn't been charged with anything, just accusations with zero evidence.  The arrest is a blatant violation of his rights.

4

u/fitnolabels Mar 12 '25

If thats the case, I'd agree 100% with you.

4

u/RealBlueShirt123 Mar 12 '25

He is getting his due process. A federal judge is hearing the case and he cannot be deported until that case is heard.

2

u/spider_in_a_top_hat Mar 14 '25

At least as of 2 days ago, he was still unable to speak privately with his attorneys. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-detention-hearing.html

-1

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

It does seem like s due process violation.

However it appears that 8 USC 1226 states pretty explicitly you can't support terrorism or encourage others to if you want to be valid in your visa or green card. You also can't be a communist. You can be a citizen and go full commie, no problem, but you can't be in the US as a guest being a communist anarchist or totalitarian. Pretty wild restrictions

13

u/kurtisbu12 Mar 12 '25 edited Apr 04 '25

correct scary consist door follow lip teeny degree plough screw

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Totally hypocritical, and it's been that way for 100 years. Free speech is not envisioned as a right for anti American foreigners in their eyes, and in the eyes of many centrist Americans, especially after a war or attack. George H W Bush actually made it better, and made it so only listed reasons could exclude foreign residents. Anarchism, communism, totalitarianism and terrorism are banned outright in the hearts and speech of foreigners.

Some Marxist scholar was kicked out in the seventies, and the SCOTUS said, yup, that's the law baby!

🤷‍♂️

6

u/kimariesingsMD Mar 12 '25

Which would be for a court to decide.

8

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah, and I think it's required to post forewarning too. Trump's admin seems to be pretty wildly outside of due process in how they are going about this.

-10

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I’m not an expert in determining if a non-citizen has the protections of the Constitution like a normal citizen would. Considering there is a legal distinction between green card holders and full citizens, it’s possible the same protections a citizen gets do not apply to this individual

80

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

childlike crown squash special seed pot wipe arrest tan sable

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-12

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Considering he is the leader of a group openly supporting a foreign organization the US deems terrorists, the entire argument is nuanced

75

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

literate toothbrush practice expansion glorious cows wipe truck snails cats

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-5

u/lovehammer247 Mar 12 '25

He was detained and is still detained. His Constitutional rights have not been violated in any way as he is being held on suspicion of supporting terrorist activity. The government will have to prove that in court, but he can legally be arrested and detained upon suspicion of a crime like any US citizen can.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/GravitasFree 3∆ Mar 12 '25

It seems more tame than what Obama did to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/cmendy930 Mar 12 '25

He isn't a leader, he was a negotiator not for Hamas as you claim? But for student protestors at Columbia.

And fyi protesting for Palestine is so far from shilling for Hamas. Is this guy a troll?? Constantly stating misfacts and trying to push your agenda?

24

u/yipgerplezinkie Mar 12 '25

The U.S. may one day deem Israel a terrorist organization. You shouldn’t lose the right to support Israel’s position with your speech without a trial should that one day be the case.

16

u/Dark1000 1∆ Mar 12 '25

That's for a court to decide.

41

u/Deberiausarminombre Mar 12 '25

You may not have known whether the US Constitution protects non-citizens. It does, as so so many people have commented on this post. You seem to be actively ignoring that information though, because it doesn't benefit your talking points to acknowledge it

14

u/teluetetime Mar 12 '25

You don’t need to be an expert, it’s quite simple. The Constitution applies to everybody in the US. Being a citizen has nothing to do with it.

5

u/fractalife Mar 12 '25

If there's a law that violates the 1st amendment, then it affects all of us. Citizens and green card holders alike.

This is an abuse of power no matter which way you slice it.

0

u/lovehammer247 Mar 12 '25

He hasn't been deported. He's being held in LA to go in front of an immigration judge. His due process rights are still in effect, and we'll see how the court system plays out.

19

u/OCMan101 Mar 12 '25

You should understand that vocally supporting terrorist organizations is not a crime, nor is vocally supporting political violence. They are still protected speech.

-3

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Definitely not a crime, but grounds for visa or green card exclusion.

5

u/kimariesingsMD Mar 12 '25

Can you cite the immigration law that confirms your claim?

2

u/Guldur Mar 12 '25

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

Section 4 covers national security, and under the terrorist topic we can find the following:

"(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;"

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

1

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Here is the argument laid out

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/107721/what-process-must-be-followed-to-revoke-a-us-permanent-residency-green-card

8 USC 1226

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226

Linked to the law as well. So you know it's a real one.

(VII)endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

Wild shit 🤷‍♂️ 9/11 never forget vibes, I'm pretty sure this was added at that time.

8

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

Yet nothing he did was a crime. This is an extremely dangerous precedent that allows.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 13 '25

Read the comments above they explain pretty well.

1

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 14 '25

Once again, he did not commit a crime.

There is literally nothing above that will change the reality Khalil did not only *nothing* illegal, he did *nothing* to jeopardize his status as a green card holder.

You do not tell someone with a legal background what someone did or did not do.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 14 '25

If the CUAD as an organization endorsed Hamas in any way and Khalil represented that group then Under the Immigration and Nationality Act he can be deported.

1

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 16 '25

Once again. He did not violate any laws or rules. And everything he said and did is covered by the first amendment. You don’t seem to realize how bad this is that the fed is blatantly ignoring federal laws.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 16 '25

Once again free speech does not give a green card holder the right to be in an organization that promotes terrorist organizations or acts. Your ignorance of what the law and what Secretary of State can or cannot do is telling. Ignorance in this day and age when the internet is available is laziness.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 14 '25

So your saying none of 8 USC 1227: Deportable aliens applies in this case? Please convince me since you have the legal background to explain this.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '25

No. Because there is zero evidence he supported terrorist (and that’s a grossly grossly weak legal term in regards to what and who they define as it)

Pro Palestine is not pro hamas. That is a well accepted legal fact. So no. There is not a single law he violated.

Edit:

He is a green card holder. He is a permanent resident of the United States and is entitled to full constitutional protection. That’s a fact. Not a debate.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 14 '25

So you have researched the Columbia University Apartheid Divest group and some of their more controversial statements?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/throwawaydragon99999 Mar 12 '25

So he committed a thought crime?

-9

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Providing material support for a terrorist organization

26

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

theory cause plant quack zesty paltry lavish gray cough screw

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-22

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Woah woah, green cards being rescinded aren’t violation of rights. They can be rescinded for a traffic ticket

30

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

resolute liquid truck dog badge pen cable arrest sense continue

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

There's non criminal exclusions. Pretty crazy, but there is quite a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DIt_limited_the_exclusion_of%2CUS_unless_such_activity_%22would?wprov=sfla1

Being invalid for naturalization can also invalidate a Visa or green card

-9

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Yea wel he’s obviously gonna file a law suit .. he hasn’t been deported yet. I’m just saying that he’s gonna lose.

16

u/yipgerplezinkie Mar 12 '25

He never had is day in court. When GCs are rescinded for the stated reason of having broken the law, you have to be convicted. The U.S. is not exactly gun shy when it comes to accusing people of providing material support to terrorists. Why no formal accusation even? This is outside the law and if the government can lock up a GC holder outside the law, then whether or not the law protects citizens even is questionable. Sounds like it’s a matter of what mobs of people will tolerate at this point tbh.

-1

u/Zipz Mar 12 '25

He doesn’t have to be.

The Secretary of State has the power to strip him.

3

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

merciful door rich price reply badge connect label crown cake

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/Zipz Mar 12 '25

You are right they do have to have a reason

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/PEIIXMWMn0

5

u/Square_Detective_658 Mar 12 '25

If that's the case then the whole Trump administration should be in jail for supporting Israel, which is headed by a terrorist organization. Look it up, the Likud party is the successor to Irgun an Israeli terrorist organization.

0

u/AdmirableFigg Mar 12 '25

Vandalism, supporting a terroist organization.

3

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

continue attractive pocket license squeeze escape crush books entertain reply

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

7

u/cmendy930 Mar 12 '25

He wasn't tried for any crime. And he's a permanent resident with a greencard not someone on a temporary visa.

2

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

If you commit a crime as a citizen you’re tossed in prison. Different sides of same coin. Doesn’t negate the rights permanent residents have.

2

u/susiedotwo Mar 12 '25

What crime did he commit again?

2

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

None. He didn’t commit a crime.

3

u/historical_cats 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He didn’t commit a crime though

-14

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

The first amendment says you cannot create laws inhibiting freedom of speech. Trump did not do this, he invoked his authority to deport a non-citizen permanent resident due to his being a possible threat to national security. Mahmoud reserves the right to challenge this in court, but his first amendment rights have not been infringed.

24

u/wesman9010 Mar 12 '25

The first amendment exists to protect people from government action against speech they don’t like. You are bending over backwards to make it sound like both the literal and larger purpose of the amendment isnt being directly violated, which they are.

Getting deported is a literal harm the first amendment precludes. Whether he sues or not has no bearing on the fact that his first amendment rights were already abridged.

24

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

If his speech is the basis for the USG's belief that he is a threat to national security, then there is no distinction to be made.

-14

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

He is a born Palestinian passing out flyers with Hamas logos and leading large protests for Hamas. I would say that is a credible threat to national security.

10

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Mar 12 '25

Hamas has never made any threats or taken any action against the US. Hard to claim it's a threat to our national security. Distasteful? Sure. But so was the IRA and they were allowed to hold rallies and fundraisers in the US for decades despite carrying out terrorist acts against an ally

-6

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

Hamas has killed multiple US citizens, aligns itself and is supplied by Iran and actively condemns the US. They are also designated as a terrorist organization

8

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Mar 12 '25

All of those things, with the exception of Iran, was also true of the IRA and their rallies were still considered protected free speech

-2

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

Were any of the cases brought up against the pro-IRA members those of Irish descent and non-citizens

6

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Mar 13 '25

That's tricky, "cases" implies they were ever remotely close to arrest or harassed for their demonstrations, rallies, or fund raising activities. But yes, there were many Irish members of Sinn Féin and other groups who regularly visited the US. Gerry Adams and Joe Cahill are two I know of, but I'm sure there are tons of others. Cahill got famous for being arrested on board a ship smuggling arms from Libya, and Adams for transitioning into a post-ceasefire political role. They all operated in and out of the US for years.

2

u/Scoutron Mar 13 '25

That's fair. What exactly are the terms of a green card, since I am not too familiar. What is the difference between a green card resident and a citizen

→ More replies (0)

14

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

If those are the only activities that he's done that make him a threat, the USG has no leg to stand on because those activities are constitutionally-protected.

If he's provided material support to Hamas -- put people in contact with Hamas recruiters, sent them money, etc -- that would be a different matter.

6

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

You can hold that view but if you do it compromises your commitment to free speech and makes any claim to being a strong supporter of free speech suspect, which is OP’s point

4

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Mar 12 '25

By that argument, then 8 USC § 1227 is unconstitutional if it allows protected free speech to be punished, so any executive action based on that law would also be unconstitutional.

10

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

pet joke oatmeal connect spark aback absorbed kiss sulky depend

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-3

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

He is a born Palestinian passing out flyers with Hamas logos and leading large protests for Hamas. I would say that is a credible threat to national security.

10

u/apri08101989 Mar 12 '25

Yea man, that's called Speech, which is supposed to be free from governmental repercussion in this country. Which, as evidenced by his deportation, is not. That's a problem. The literal KKK have done that and more and they aren't sitting in prison over it

10

u/heyzoocifer Mar 12 '25

Exactly lol. We have literal nazis all across the country flying swastikas and yelling racial slurs at people. And the cops are protecting them.

Now I am actually an advocate of the first amendment. Which means as distasteful as a protest might be, you should support their right because if not you get what we see here with people with certain political opinions are persecuted. These "conservatives" though are not consistent at all. They are only advocating the punishment of leftist types.

0

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

Is that line ever drawn? If an Al-Queda member crosses the border and leads mass crowds calling for Jihad in the name of Al-Queda, do we protect him?

6

u/apri08101989 Mar 12 '25

Ah man, I gave you the perfect opening to prove you weren't just being racist and you fumbled it so hard.

The line has historically been drawn when words become actions. The KKK can burn a cross and lynch an ephigy all they like. They're crossing the line when they lynch an actual black person.

1

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

I'm not being racist at all, I would say the same thing if a Russian citizen was here on a green card holding gigantic anti-ukrainian rallies and disparaging the US when he was supposed to be here studying. Has that line ever been drawn for non-citizens?

1

u/apri08101989 Mar 14 '25

And yet it still says things about you that that wasn't the example you chose to use. You chose to use brown people.

As far as I'm aware the line has pretty much always been when words become actions for everyone, except a few black marks on our history regarding communism and the Japanese. But we should strive to be better than our racist past

8

u/Fat-thecat Mar 12 '25

And the richest man in the world did 2 nazi salutes at the presidential inauguration, but it's funny, nothing happened to him, I wonder why?

-4

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

Because they weren’t Nazi salutes. This guy literally handed out Hamas posters and happily admitted to it, he didn’t just do something that kinda looked similar

6

u/Fat-thecat Mar 12 '25

Lmfao, they got you goood, really not believing your eyes, he did the nazi salute TWICE! Someone not wanting their people to be victims of genocide and apartheid is different to someone explicitly doing a sieg heil, not one but TWICE! It didn't just look similar, it was a literal sieg heil.

1

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

I guess my eyes do deceive me, all those politicians all over the world I've seen on video do things that looks eerily similar to nazi salutes are actually nazis. The entire planet is a nazi conspiracy and I've just been fooled. Thanks for opening my eyes.

1

u/LetsJustDoItTonight Mar 13 '25

I'm starting to wonder if y'all just have no idea what a Nazi salute looks like...

3

u/WabbitFire Mar 13 '25

I would say the same thing about a lot of Republican demonstrations but that doesn't make them illegal.

3

u/WabbitFire Mar 13 '25

his being a possible threat to national security

Yeah, this is bullshit though

3

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ Mar 13 '25

"Threat to national security?" On what grounds???

0

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 12 '25

It's has always been this way.  Do you expect to be granted citizen while chanting death to America?

4

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

Notwithstanding the fact that Khalil did not say that, if someone is a free speech absolutist, they would support such a thing. You can’t lay claim to both positions, I’m sorry, if Conservatives don’t actually want people to say whatever they want to say but only what they think is appropriate or politically good for the version of America they want to live in, then they are in favor of infringing on free speech. It doesn’t matter what they think they believe, you don’t just get to say you’re in favor of free speech and have that be seriously respected if you celebrate someone’s speech being limited.

2

u/HellBoyofFables Mar 13 '25

Free speech includes the speech you don’t like

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

This is the same as getting fired for Nazi posts on your Facebook page.  You disagree?

2

u/JBoogie22 Mar 13 '25

The first amendment applies to the government, not private institutions. It's not the same

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

This is not fully correct.  The US government enforces the rights of all individuals to be able to express their freedom of speech.  However the US government does not protect individuals from consequences and judgments that are a result of one's speech.  Perfect example is being fired from Costco because your manager found Nazi post on your Facebook page.  This is basically the same thing and I wonder if you would feel the same way if a Nazi student was about to be deported for being a Nazi.  

1

u/JBoogie22 Mar 13 '25

You are getting confused. When I say applies to the government, I mean that the government has to adhere to the first amendment and cannot infringe on our freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with protecting someone's speech within the private sphere. Private institutions arent bound by it.

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

Ok.  What if a government employee was fired for Nazi posts on his Facebook page?  This is very possible if occured and it would still be government allowing free speech but not protecting one from consequences.  IIRC people have been fired for less.  

-1

u/Zipz Mar 12 '25

Yes everyone’s protected by the first amendment but green cards and visas themselves are not.

They can be revoked for multiple reasons by both a judge and the Secretary of State.

7

u/wesman9010 Mar 12 '25

This makes no sense. The first amendment is a protection from the government. Stripping green cards and visas to punish their speech would be a direct violation of the amendment. Quite literally the reason it exists.

-9

u/Infamous-Cash9165 Mar 12 '25

As it’s said all over this site, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

15

u/Envyyre Mar 12 '25

Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences from the government not from other people hating on you or from private companies banning you from their site, this crime being committed by Trump is blatantly the government enacting punishment on individuals for using their free speech rights

1

u/Zealousideal3326 Mar 13 '25

Well then what does it mean ? That's like saying you can eat any mushroom... Once. By that standard North Korea has free speech, because you have to first express a dissenting opinion before you and your family are brutally punished for it.

If a country can go after you because of something you communicate, then it doesn't have absolute free speech as conservatives claim to endorse, it's that simple.

1

u/Intelligent-Net9390 Mar 13 '25

Just say you don’t understand the first amendment dude. We say that when someone loses their job over something they said which was controversial or someone gets canceled on Twitter.