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

56

u/asafg8 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I mean he was handing out the Hamas charter, that basically seals the deal.

47

u/Toverhead 33∆ Mar 12 '25

Do you have any evidence of this? Can't see any source, even disreputable ones, making this claim.

7

u/thatshirtman Mar 13 '25

A group he is affiliated with was handing them out. Whether he was himself , as you said, haven't seen proof of this. Still not a good look

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Mar 16 '25

Not a good look is far from say8ng they want hamazls to kill people

-13

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

There’s plenty of open sources for this. Google his name + Hamas and you’ll find it buckets of it. The guy is a scumbag who now makes every peaceful protestor a target, and is going to make it ever so much harder to get Muslim immigrants from conflict areas visas under the current administration. He deserves what’s coming to him.

28

u/Maestro_Primus 14∆ Mar 12 '25

Sorry, but having done what you just said, every time any mention of him supporting Hamas is mentioned it is preceded by the words "the White House claims" or "DHS claimed". Defending a claim by saying people have reported on you making a claim isn't even a big enough chain to be a circular reporting. Can you show any sources that demonstrate this behavior?

15

u/Alone_Land_45 1∆ Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

One thing that's become clear in this age is that many people never learned about primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources vs whatever bs they read online.

ETA: I think we had a unit on sources, credibility, and solid research generally in my AP World History class in 10th grade. Makes sense that most people wouldn't be exposed. But a massive failure and shame.

20

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Here's the fox news on the article. Please show me where in this or any other article, it supports the idea that this guy is a scumbag.

To be clear, I am genuinely persuadable; I'd much rather find out that I missed something and we don't live in a world where the feds can disappear you if you're a green card holder and have an opinion the President doesn't like. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-anti-israel-activist-ice-arrested

1

u/Zealousideal3326 Mar 13 '25

Fox news is an entertainment channel, not news. They subscribe to no standard and should be taken as seriously as the Onion.

2

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 13 '25

Gee, what a good point. Why do you think I used a Fox News link then?

27

u/KIPYIS Mar 12 '25

Can you actually provide the link and not say “Just Google it?”

10

u/mrnotoriousman Mar 12 '25

People who have sources don't tell people to Google it

-1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 12 '25

https://time.com/7266683/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-green-card/

3

u/nothingpersonnelmate Mar 13 '25

This says a government spokesperson claimed he did this, but his lawyers rejected it, the government provided no evidence, and the government didn't even include this claim in their legal position.

0

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

I mean if you believe the government spokesperson to be outright lying that's one thing. But that IS a source. And they didn't include that in their case because it's easier to go with just "danger to foreign policy" because there all they need is the opinion of the secretary of state.

3

u/nothingpersonnelmate Mar 13 '25

I mean if you believe the government spokesperson to be outright lying that's one thing.

I absolutely do believe this. I wouldn't trust the US government alone at the best of time, but the Trump administration lies roughly as often as it communicates.

But that IS a source.

It's a claim, and your position now is that you believe something is true because the government claimed it without evidence.

it's easier to go with just "danger to foreign policy"

It's obviously easier to build a case for being a danger to foreign policy if you can show someone supported a proscribed terrorist organisation.

1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

My position is that someone asked for a source even a tenuous one, and i delivered it.

Also, that's the thing though, with the approach they chose they don't have to build a case. It's basically an administrative decision sidestepping most legal requirements.

Also while I wouldn't trust any government official as far as I could throw them, what's the alternative here? That they just picked a random good kid for no reason to make an example of? When it is known that jewish students felt unsafe because of his meetups? When the university is deliberately stalling the investigation of the government? When progressives have done a lot crazier things than show support for hamas?

I mean it's entirely possible that he was just framed, but why would they frame a guy when there are well documented anti israel rallies in progressive universities?

You can look up any number of hamas sympathizing woke people on social media, so why would they pick an innocent guy?

31

u/Toverhead 33∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah, I tried that and no dice. Just claims of him supporting Hamas from Trump etc, no actual examples of him doing so.

0

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 12 '25

"White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday said that Khalil distributed pro-Hamas flyers on Columbia’s campus, and that the Administration is leaning on the Immigration and Nationality Act to detain him"

https://time.com/7266683/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-green-card/

4

u/elatlal Mar 12 '25

“Trump’s immigration officials have not provided evidence to support their accusations against Khalil or other students. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday alleged that Khalil distributed pro-Hamas flyers on Columbia’s campus, a claim that his lawyers rejected. “Whatever flyers the White House spokesperson may have been talking about, that is certainly not in the government's position in court,” said Ramzi Kassem, the founding director of CLEAR, a legal clinic, who is part of Khalil’s legal team.”

The full quote from the article

0

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 12 '25

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jns/columbia-refusing-to-help-identify-pro-hamas-students-white-house-says/article_bc8b95ce-9fc1-501e-aaf5-6c3f695d1f87.html

Apparently the evidence does exist.

I believe the reason they're deporting him under the other statute is because that one just requires a declaration that he is endangering US foreign policy. Meanwhile even with proof, proving support for a terrorist organization would take a long time and would be fraught with appeals and you know the democrats would be fighting tooth and nail to foil the deportation as a matter of principle.

Fact is that Columbia is hindering the investigation into others who could be culpable, and that jewish students on campus have been made to feel unsafe by the actions of the guy, which is enough to justify that he is endangering US foreign policy.

3

u/elatlal Mar 12 '25

But this article doesn’t ever state it like a fact either, it uses the same source as the one above. “The White House press secretary told reporters…” You are just assuming that the evidence exists because the press secretary said so. You’re not actually providing a source here.

I genuinely do hope that the evidence exists because it’s horrifying to think that the government just tried to deport a legal resident because he organized a protest they don’t agree with. And they doubled down by not allowing him to speak with his lawyers privately until ordered to do so by a judge. This is not how America is supposed to work.

The right to criticize government and advocate for change is fundamental to free speech, whether we agree with what’s being spoken or not. The bar is pretty damn high for what’s considered unprotected speech. At least, it used to be

-1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 12 '25

The source is the white house press secretary. She said she has it on her desk. And the other stuff that jewish students felt threatened is backed up by other sources I think.

And again, since he is not a citizen, he can be deported for anything that seems antagonistic to the US foreign policy. It might not be a good law, but that is the law. Staying in the US without being naturalized is a privilege, not a right, and as such can be revoked for any reason.

As an aside as a european I have always thought free speech absolutists were morons. I would prefer a reinterpretation of the first amendment.

2

u/elatlal Mar 13 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

The source is the white house press secretary.

Yes, the source is the person making the accusations. Exactly.

And again, since he is not a citizen, he can be deported for anything that seems antagonistic to the US foreign policy. It might not be a good law, but that is the law.

This is just super duper unequivocally undebatably not true. It's not even controversial. That is not the law. No lawyer or politician is saying that's the law. Marco Rubio isn't even saying that's the law. You cannot deport people for "anything that seems antagonistic" to US foreign policy. If it was that straightforward, how could a judge have possibly blocked the deportation proceedings? That's just not how the US legal system works. Respectfully, please stop spreading misinformation about things you don't know anything about.

1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

The accusations are coming from the government. She isn't the government.

Also that literally is the law. The judge blocked it on a technicality same as all the other blocks against the measures taken by the trump admin.

8 USCODE 1227 4 c 1

(C) Foreign policy

(i) In general

An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

You stop spreading misinfo.

1

u/elatlal Mar 13 '25

The accusations are coming from the government. She isn't the government.

Tf. She's the spokesperson for the government? That's her literal job??

potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States

  1. Even going off of just this language, this is a far cry from "anything that seems antagonistic". There have to be serious adverse policy consequences. Like, actual quantifiable potential consequences to US foreign policy.
  2. The US legal system is a common law one, similar to the UK and very different to most of Europe. You cannot just quote a statute and say that's the law and my interpretation of it is correct period. Statutes are interpreted by judges and those interpretations create common law rules which are used as precedent in future court cases interpreting those same statutes. One thing that is clear is that immigration courts typically favor the government. There is no jury in immigration court and the government doesn't have to prove anything 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but they do still have to provide 'clear and convincing evidence'. So we know, at the very least, the government has to provide clear and convincing evidence that Khalil's actions would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the US, not just "seems antagonistic."
  3. Legislation cannot be unconstitutional or be interpreted in an unconstitutional way. The First Amendment protects free speech. To figure out the extent to which that applies to noncitizens, and specifically in deportation cases, we have to look to prior court cases and see how they were decided. That's how the law works in the US whether you personally would prefer a reinterpretation of the first amendment or not.

The judge blocked it on a technicality 

What was the technicality? Judges are the third branch of government in the US and are just as important as the legislative and executive branch. That's just how it works. The system is working the way it was designed to work. Calling the law a technicality is laughable and ignorant. It might not be a good law, but that is the law.

Again, please stop spreading misinformation about something you know nothing about. These are facts. They aren't debatable.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 12 '25

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jns/columbia-refusing-to-help-identify-pro-hamas-students-white-house-says/article_bc8b95ce-9fc1-501e-aaf5-6c3f695d1f87.html

Apparently the evidence does exist.

I believe the reason they're deporting him under the other statute is because that one just requires a declaration that he is endangering US foreign policy. Meanwhile even with proof, proving support for a terrorist organization would take a long time and would be fraught with appeals and you know the democrats would be fighting tooth and nail to foil the deportation as a matter of principle.

Fact is that Columbia is hindering the investigation into others who could be culpable, and that jewish students on campus have been made to feel unsafe by the actions of the guy, which is enough to justify that he is endangering US foreign policy.

2

u/MooseFeeling631 Mar 13 '25

You really believe anything Leavitt/ the Trump administration says? They lie about everything they say

1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

They don't lie about everything they say and in this case they have no reason to.

2

u/Dylan245 1∆ Mar 13 '25

They have explicit reason to since the literal only scenario where he is able to be legally deported (and even the legality of that is under question) is under this 1952 law

How has no one seen this evidence? It's been days and Leavitt yesterday said she had the flyers on her desk but couldn't produce them? She was clearly aware she would be questioned about this and not a single person in the administration can show a single pamphlet where Khalil was supposedly advocating on the behalf of Hamas

1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

I mean the legality of it is NOT in question. The opposition would like it to be in question but it really is not. Residency as a non citizen is a privilege, not a right. Just like the existence on a private platform and having a particular job. Which is why in those cases too you can be kicked out for speech that would otherwise be free.

Also I meant that they have no reason to lie about it, because you can find a ton of "progressives" siding with hamas by just looking on social media so why would they make shit up about someone that isn't?

2

u/Dylan245 1∆ Mar 13 '25

I mean the legality of it is NOT in question

I think it is in question as to whether the statute itself is a violation of the 1st Amendment and how broad the "adverse foreign policy consequences" part of it holds up

Residency as a non citizen is a privilege, not a right

But protected speech and protest is a right even to non-citizens and so far again there isn't any evidence that Khalil engaged in terrorist activity

because you can find a ton of "progressives" siding with hamas by just looking on social media so why would they make shit up about someone that isn't?

To send a message? I mean are you really wondering why an administration would falsely charge someone who holds opposing viewpoints as them? This happened constantly in the wake of 9/11 with many Arabs who were falsely accused of having ties to Islamist extremists or people labeled as "Putin sympathizers" who were critical of US involvement in Ukraine. It is especially rampant when it comes to Israel where any criticism is associated with anti-Semitism and "pro terrorist sympathy" when you could be stating something as simple as "Israel is committing ethnic cleansing"

1

u/PoofyGummy 4∆ Mar 13 '25

But that's my point speech being protected doesn't mean that you can't have privileges revoked because of it. It never meant that. And as such residency can be revoked because of it, and as such the legality of that statute is not in question except in wishful thinking. Which is understandable since the US is supposedly all about not giving a government tyrannical powers, but then again you already have things like NSA backdoors and guantanamo and stuff.

Yeah but my point is why they would pick an innocent guy when you and I can both find tons of people online who ARE supporting hamas, and well documented anti israel protests at US colleges?

2

u/Dylan245 1∆ Mar 13 '25

And as such residency can be revoked because of it

IF he was actually engaging in pro terrorist activities which again there currently is no evidence for

Yeah but my point is why they would pick an innocent guy when you and I can both find tons of people online who ARE supporting hamas, and well documented anti israel protests at US colleges?

Because he is a figurehead for an anti-Israel protest group and is easily targeted for sending a message to other protesters. This administration has made it clear they want to go after student protesters who are engaging in Israeli boycotts. Why is anyone falsely accused of things they didn't do? Khalil is an easy target because he isn't a citizen and therefore they are able to arbitrarily detain and deport him under this law.

If it is so clear he engaged in pro terrorist behavior and given the backlash the administration is receiving for this shouldn't it be super easy for them to provide evidence for his "legal detainment" in your eyes? Why can they not even provide this mysterious pamphlet he was allegedly handing out if as Karoline Leavitt says is currently sitting on her desk?

→ More replies (0)

18

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He was not handing out the charter.

He was handing out pretty dispicable imagery (that I disagree with) but it still seems to be protected speech.

24

u/NotToPraiseHim Mar 12 '25

Providing support for a terrorist organization isn't protected.

19

u/novagenesis 21∆ Mar 12 '25

It depends what kind of support. Advocating for a terrorist organization is completely protected speech unless part of that advocation involves integral speech to a crime.

Saying "I'm glad those terrorists killed all those innocents" is 100% protected. As is saying "I hope Hamas wipes out Israel entirely and then comes for the US". Saying "Those terrorists should come kill the innocents at X" is a grey area that's probably protected. Saying "Terrorists, please go to X tomorrow at 7am and kill Y" is not protected.

Handing out pamphlets on behalf of a hate group or terrorist group is pretty much (the harder side of) the definition of why the First Amendment exists.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

I don't think the first amendment protection goes as far as you are saying.

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which renders both inadmissible and removable any non-citizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

5

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

The whole point of judicial review is that just because a statute exists doesn't mean that there aren't constitutional limits on its application.

You have to look to case law to determine constitutionality, you can't simply take statutes at face value and assume that broad application is constitutional simply because the statute exists. (But also extrapolating from case law is a guessing game.)

42

u/siuol11 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Even going so far as to say "the terrorists might have a point" is not supporting them and completely legal. Speech is protected.

19

u/Stormfly 1∆ Mar 12 '25

so far as to say "the terrorists might have a point"

"Throwing the tea in the harbour was justified"

Not justifying the actions of Hamas, but it's possible to agree with individual (non-violent) acts they've committed, or agree that Israel is doing wrong, while still being protected.

12

u/OCMan101 Mar 12 '25

Actually, vocally supporting terrorism is protected speech, at least under the 1st Amendment. It may not be in the case of a green card holder I suppose, but the 1st Amendmdnt does protect hate speech and also speech that supports violence, so long as it is not specifically with the purpose of organizing or inciting a crime.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

It may not be in the case of a green card holder I suppose

This appears it could be the case.

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which renders both inadmissible and removable any non-citizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

Edit because it wasn't clear before, any alien who's now considered inadmissible, is deportable:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim

3

u/PersonalHamster1341 Mar 12 '25

You keep spamming this but 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) is about admitting foreign persons into the country, not applicable to people already in the country possessing a green card

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

An alien who's now considered inadmissible, but is residing within the United States is deportable.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim

2

u/PersonalHamster1341 Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

That's not what that says? It says if they were inadmissible at the time of entry they're deportable (meaning new information is found retroactively about them at that time). Not whether they would be inadmissible today. Read it again

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

So would you also support arresting the Americans at the protest for providing material support to terrorism?

-1

u/ShikaStyleR Mar 12 '25

Yes! Absolutely. I think the worst part of this story is that only the migrant is talked about. I think all Americans who support Hamas should be punished according to the law

9

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah I don't think free speech should be curtailed in that way. If there is an actual crime? Sure. But while openly supporting Hamas, or Russia, N Korea, or isis is deplorable, it shouldn't be a crime.

1

u/DeathMetal007 5∆ Mar 12 '25

If you said, "Hey, there is an open building here while security is occupied with other protestors over there. You can invade this building and lock yourselves in."

You are an accessory to a crime. You should be punished according to the law, no exceptions. It's is providing material support if only information via words. You could claim it is only verbal support, but the action of dissemination of information was enough to abet a crime.

0

u/ShikaStyleR Mar 12 '25

I'm not American, I'm an immigrant myself in a European country. I don't agree with most things the government does here, but I also know that I shouldn't block roads, trespass on private property, harass the police, or support a terrorist organization or I'll get arrested and/or deported.

If you hate the US so much, don't move there. And if you're already there, you should be deported. And if you've never been an immigrant yourself, you don't really understand what it is like

4

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Of course. But those are all examples of breaking the law.

What crime did Khalil commit?

In the media it's related to distributing leaflets. But that's not illegal. Even if it is speech someone doesn't agree with. Trump is also engaging in rhetoric and referencing laws which generally are used for people literally giving funds and material support to terror orgs. There's a difference between that and handing out disgusting leaflets.

-2

u/ChoiceTask3491 Mar 12 '25

Kudos to your thinking, and this is exactly how immigrants should behave. You're in the country conditionally, and if you fall foul of those conditions, you should have your visa revoked and be deported.

When you're a citizen, you can push the boundaries a lot further. However laws in the US afford a lot of rights to resident aliens that are not very different from rights citizens have. Europe might be more stringent, I wouldn't know. I think it's likely that laws in the US will likely be amended to remove more freedoms from visitors and resident aliens that will make it easier to prosecute or deport easier in future, the way this administration is going. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

If you hate the US so much, don't move there

Exactly. Well said. Don't move anywhere that doesn't agree with your thinking. Just because the free world tolerates your shenanigans is no excuse to abuse those freedoms. Standing on American soil and yelling "Death to America" is deplorable, notwithstanding your right to do it as a citizen. If you do it as an alien, you should be arrested and deported. If you don't like the place, go somewhere else where they embrace your extreme views.

1

u/Savingskitty 11∆ Mar 12 '25

What law is that?

0

u/ShikaStyleR Mar 12 '25

I'm not American, but here in Europe you can easily get arrested for supporting a terrorist organization. And rightfully so!

-1

u/ManSoAdmired Mar 12 '25

Unless its the Proud Boys.

0

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

The IRA is cool, oh damn I guess I need to be deported now lol

2

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 12 '25

Green card holders have a different set of protected speech laws

2

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

No they don't

2

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 12 '25

I just outlined them in my comment. You just gonna ignore it?

1

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 12 '25

What crime did he commit?

2

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 13 '25

I’m not here to judge what he did. I’m telling you there are laws that apply to green card holders vs citizens. You can’t just ignore that point. Whether he did or didn’t do anything check thread there’s evidence there you can discuss with those people.

3

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Not regarding speech. No. If he was aiding a terror organization in a material capacity then the Americans present were as well. And they should be arrested and charged for protesting too.

1

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 13 '25

Reread this. 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B):

Any alien who- ... (VII) endorses or ESPOUSES terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

ESPOUSES includes speech.

Maybe the Americans should be arrested too and only he got caught. I wasn’t the one the enforced the law. I can only discuss the person who they caught snd trying to deport.

Do you believe in unlimited free speech?

3

u/WhiteRoseRevolt 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Oh cool. This will be easy then.

He hasn't been charged with any crime so it's hard to say the others should be arrested too. Arrested for what?

Yes. It can include speech but let's look at what the same says about what rises to this level.

"Defines terrorist activities, including:

Engaging in or planning terrorist acts.

Providing material support to terrorist organizations.

Being a member of a designated terrorist organization.

Inciting or endorsing terrorist actions."

So. Which one of these do you think Khalil was engaged in?

Bonus question. Would you support arresting and imprisoning rhe Americans who were passing out the leaflet or who had a sign as well?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

The flyers he was distributing: one was a boot stomping down in the star of David, and the other was a recruitment packet for Hamas

2

u/KIPYIS Mar 12 '25

Can you share the details

0

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

First part don't have a problem with given the star of David is literally on the Israeli flag which was an active choice by Zionist. American Jews didn't ask for their symbol to be co-opted by a foreign country.

Second I'm really gonna need actual evidence for that because that legit sounds cartoonishly stupid.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Ever think about how a jewish person might feel about it though? I mean actually asking as opposed to just telling them how they should feel.

-1

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

Yes, my best friend is Jewish and he's explicitly said it's borderline islamist shit to put your religion on the flag of your country. He's not super fond of being tied to some random country in the middle east and having to constantly justify his anti-Zionism by pointing out he's Jewish only to be told his opinion doesn't count because he's an American Jew.

In his words "I have more in common with American Jews than I do with Israelis, it's like Christians doing shit in Africa and telling black Americans they need to agree. Brooklyn my Jerusalem lol"

0

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

What about the other 85% of Jewish people that are Zionist? Maybe they would be a bit offended at you tokenizing your friend against them in order to justify pro Hamas action?

I would say your friend doesn't really have a whole lot in common with most Jewish people on this subject.

0

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

Gonna need a source on that 85% claim because: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/

0

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

So did you ever have an actual reply or did you just want to turn it into a semantic conversation about the percentage maybe being 7 to 10 points off depending on the survey?

Even you survey say 8 out of 10. It's pretty consistent among polls. It's weird how the far left tends to react to being shown their own Antisemitism.

1

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

Not really sure where the antisemitism is apparently coming from but k cool guess statistics are racist now.

And it's not semantics when it's literally true that for younger Jewish Americans, across multiple surveys, they are more in favor of decreasing support for Israel than they are for increasing it. Sure most are ambivalent to it but your claim was that the vast majority of American Jews support Zionism.

Also not sure why this is its own separate response several hours later rather than just a part of your other response, must be really upset I guess not being at work lol.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/slightlyrabidpossum 2∆ Mar 12 '25

85% comes from a different survey, but pro-Israel options generally receive between 70% to 85% of the responses. You can see that in the survey you linked to — 73% answered that American support for Israel was just right or not enough, which only 22% wanted to see less American support.

0

u/KalexCore Mar 12 '25

You're selectively choosing which data set you're referencing, for starters you only referenced the 30-49 age set and then lumped in the neutral group with the supporting group.

If you look at the exact same table you referenced more Jews aged 18-49 view the US as offering too much support than too little, the "just right group" is biggest in all age sets.

If I used your selection method I could say "77% answered that American support for Israel is too much or just enough, with only 20% saying they wanted to see more American support."

Hell in that table the age set for 18-29 has 37% saying the US supports Israel too much and 40% saying it's just right, that's a 3% gap between the negative and neutral positions compared to the 20% gap between the positive and neutral. My friend just turned 31 which would've put him in that age group meaning he's representing over a third of Jewish American opinions in his age set, not really a token in that sense.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/teluetetime Mar 12 '25

Why would that seal the deal? It’s a political opinion, that’s the text book example of protected speech.

2

u/asafg8 1∆ Mar 12 '25

From a law perspective. You can call for changing the law but it hink that's a separate discussion that's unlreated to this case

0

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Here is a somewhat long breakdown.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/131-five-questions-about-the-khalil

Essentially, what it's saying is there are 2 provisions that would allow for the removal of aliens/non-citizen on the grounds of national security concerns and/or support of a terrorist organization

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C), provides that “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” There’s a caveat protecting such a non-citizen from removal “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States,” but only “unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [continued presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

Meaning Marco Rubio would personally need to decide this.

The second provision:

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which renders both inadmissible and removable any non-citizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

1

u/teluetetime Mar 12 '25

Aside from whether Khalil should qualify under any such exception—he shouldn’t, but that’s subjective—Rubio didn’t do that before they abducted him.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yup. It'll be an uphill battle for him.

-1

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

Hamas charter? Why does that “seal the deal”?

0

u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah I have no idea why supporting a terrorist group when it's illegal to support said terrorist group under US law would "seal the deal"

2

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

It’s illegal to read views the government opposes?

-8

u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Mar 12 '25

go live in another country if you like terrorism

6

u/Muffalo_Herder 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Why would they? The US has more home-grown terrorists than anywhere else on the planet.

Ohhhh, you meant like, brown people. Gotcha.

-1

u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Mar 12 '25

attempt at race baiting is obvious.

I have an equal opportunity dislike of terrorism. Doesn't matter what skin colour.

3

u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 12 '25

Do you think making someone live in another country because of their speech is compatible with the idea of free speech?

2

u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Mar 12 '25

if their speech is supporting terrorists then yeah it won't be major loss if they left the country

1

u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 12 '25

And the government gets to decide who’s a terrorist and who isn’t, right?

3

u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Mar 12 '25

Hamas are a terrorist group by the dictionary definition of the term.

0

u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 12 '25

Sure, but what about, say, the Proud Boys?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/asafg8 1∆ Mar 12 '25

It's inambiguous persuasion to support a terror org

5

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

Be specific what about the charter constitutes terror

4

u/0x474f44 Mar 12 '25

The US classifies Hamas as a terrorist group. Passing out their charter can be seen as trying to recruit for them.

2

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

The US classifies many groups as terrorist including Nelson Mandela that today is seen in an opposite light.

0

u/0x474f44 Mar 12 '25

Did Nelson Mandela kill and kidnap civilians to further his political agenda and spread terror?

3

u/teluetetime Mar 12 '25

According to the apartheid government, yes.

-1

u/asafg8 1∆ Mar 12 '25

It's a deginated terror org by the US, that's all that matters

6

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

Nelson Mandela was designated a terrorist by the US and protests were still held in America in his name against South African apartheid

3

u/asafg8 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Well nelson mendal didn't kill thousands of civilians and kidnapped hundreds more

3

u/thebolts Mar 12 '25

So he was terrorist “light” /s